Sitting of 24 October 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Public Transport (London)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his White Paper on the future co-ordination of public transport services in the London area.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The White Paper, "Public Transport in London" —Cmnd. 9004—was published on 26 July 1983.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the White Paper contained no mention of the scheme for old-age pensioners' travel on buses and tubes? Does he recall that that scheme was introduced individually by boroughs, but taken over by the GLC and administered by it under both political parties? If the GLC is abolished will it not put the scheme at risk, since there is no guarantee of equivalent finance for an equivalent standard of free pass?
    Mr. Ridley: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that the London Boroughs Association, at its meeting last Wednesday, announced that it would assume responsibility for the existing GLC scheme for
    2
    concessionary fares. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to join me in welcoming that and in heavily condemning the GLC for the ridiculous scare stories that it put out on this matter.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and ask him whether the new authority will be able to bring about some uniformity in travel concessions in London and in those other parts of the country that will be served by that authority?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I shall do my best to help him in all the many transport problems that he will raise with me. In answer to his question, the London boroughs will take over the scheme, and I hope that they will be able to improve it. However, we are rather jumping ahead, because it will be some time before they actually assume responsibility.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister say how the new proposed London regional transport authority will be allowed to set its expenditure levels? Is he aware that on the basis of the Government's approach to other local authority spending it is likely that there will be a cut of at least a half in public transport spending in London?
    Mr. Ridley: We are still considering the final details, but no major change in the level of subsidy is intended. It will come partly direct from the Government and partly perhaps from a rate precept which will pass through the Government to the new LRT. The details will be made plain to the hon. Gentleman when the legislation is published.
    Mr. Eggar: Is it not quite outrageous that the GLC has been using ratepayers' money to mount this propaganda battle to scare our old-age pensioners? Is it not another justification for the abolition of the GLC?
    Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is outrageous. It is a complete waste of ratepayers' money, and it is particularly obnoxious in that it involves trying to frighten elderly people.
    Mr. Cohen: On the matter of pensioners' free travel passes, is the Minister aware that "pursuit" — in his words—by the London Boroughs Association is a long

    3
    way from a guarantee for the scheme? Will he give an absolute guarantee that London pensioners' free travel passes will not be taken away?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not remember using the word "pursuit"; I merely quoted what the London boroughs had decided. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased to hear that news and would welcome it in the spirit in which it was meant.

    Railways (Scotland)
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for further electrification of railways in Scotland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The British Railways Board has sent us an outline appraisal of electrification of the line between Edinburgh and Newcastle, and I understand that it is considering various schemes in the Glasgow area in conjunction with Strathclyde passenger transport executive.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that the British Railways Board has for some time been looking to electrification of the line from Edinburgh to London? When will he give a decision on that, as it will bring considerable employment to the area and make the railways and industry in the north-east and Scotland more efficient?
    Mr. Mitchell: I understand the attraction of the scheme to the hon. Gentleman, but the Government must first see detailed proposals from the board.
    Mr. Henderson: Has British Rail made any proposals for electrification of the lines north of Edinburgh?
    Mr. Mitchell: We have received no such proposals.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Government consider early electrification of the entire route from King's Cross to Edinburgh, as no single act would give more confidence to the rail industry north of the border than an early decision on that?
    Mr. Mitchell: The whole question of east coast electrification is bound up with British Rail's strategy for inter-city, of which the Government are currently awaiting details.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the fourth Minister to have been presented with proposals on electrification? Will he ensure that a decision is made, as British Rail has said on innumerable occasions that the most significant investment decision required is for rail electrification of the east coast main line?
    Mr. Mitchell: The ball is in British Rail's court. The Government are awaiting the board's further proposals on the strategy for inter-city. When we receive them, we shall be in a position to make progress.

    Lorry Routes (London)
    Dr. Twinnasked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for taking over the establishment and supervision of lorry routes when the Greater London Council's responsibilities are reallocated.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am now seeking the views of
    4
    local authorities and others about our proposals for reallocating highway and traffic responsibilities in London. The arrangements adopted for handling London's lorry traffic generally will need to cater for the widespread importance and impact of freight movement in and around London.
    Dr. Twinn: Whatever the Minister's final decision, will she give proper weight to the needs for commerce and industry in London and avoid the doctrinaire response of the Greater London Council in the Wood report?
    Mrs. Chalker: Industry and commerce must have full consideration in any scheme involving lorry ban proposals. I agree with my hon. Friend that a blanket ban as proposed by the GLC prior to the Wood report would not be conducive to employment in London. The GLC should take careful note of what it would do to London employment and industry if it proceeded with a complete ban. Careful planning and full consultation with the boroughs must take place in devising lorry controls.

    Road Construction and Traffic Management (London)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for new road construction work and traffic management in the Greater London area.
    Mrs. Chalker: The Department has a substantive trunk road programme to benefit Greater London over the next few years as the M25 nears completion. Traffic management is currently a GLC responsibility. Our proposals for reallocating highway and traffic management responsibilities in London were published on 7 October and I am holding consultations about them.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no valid reason why the north London lorry box concept should not be implemented immediately by the GLC, and that the two-year delay since the scheme was ready to be implemented by the previous GLC fails to benefit anyone? Will she also bear in mind that if the GLC is incapable of taking this responsibility many people would wish to see the responsibility removed from the GLC?
    Mrs. Chalker: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, when the idea was put up it seemed sensible and the Department considered that it should be implemented. Matters have changed a little, but I look for commonsense solutions—not blanket bans—which will benefit all the boroughs concerned and not simply pass the problem of lorry control from one borough to the next.
    Mr. Higgins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her well-deserved promotion. When responsibility for traffic management is taken from the GLC, will she review the need for many bus routes which seem to be slowing not only private vehicles but buses?
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I shall do my best in my job.
    Traffic management schemes in London are many and varied. It is high time that we had the best schemes for the major routes in terms of both public transport and private traffic. That will be our strategy for central London.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I join in congratulating the hon. Lady on her promotion, but ask with incredulity how

    5
    someone of her intelligence can believe that the involvement of three separate bodies dealing with roads in London—the Department, the London boroughs and a joint voluntary committee, which has yet to be set up— can possibly be more efficient than a properly planned integrated system.
    Mrs. Chalker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
    The three-tier system of local government in relation to transport was criticised by the Select Committee. The Government propose that the Department will make the strategic decisions and that the boroughs, which already join together on a voluntary basis in planning many routes, will continue to do that. Two are better than three.

    Serpell Report
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce his decisions on the Serpell report.
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the Serpell report.
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has had on the Serpell report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend has today written to the chairman of the British Railways Board setting out the Government's objectives for the railways. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend will make a statement about this later today.
    We have received a large number of representations about the Serpell report from hon. Members, the British Railways Board, the railway trade unions and others.
    Dr. Marek: If the Minister agrees that both roads and railways have a part to play in serving the country, will he give an assurance that the development of the railway system will not suffer as a result of the building and development of the road system?
    Mr. Mitchell: The railway system will be maintained according to the level of consumer demand. That is the overriding factor in the prosperity and success of the railways.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister support bodies, such as Bradford district council, which oppose the butchery of the railway system? Will he accept that expansion of the railway system is vitally important in combating unemployment and in promoting economic recovery, tourism and other social factors? Will he also have a word with the courteous Neanderthal who has recently been appointed his boss and ensure that even courteous Neanderthals are prepared to consign the Serpell report to the wastebin of history?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is unfortunate when hon. Members use inflammatory language such as
    "butchery of the railway system"
    in referring to the Government's position as it frightens many people unnecessarily, especially the elderly who have retired and rely upon the railway line in the district in which they live. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no programme of major route closures in mind.
    Mr. Kirkwood: When the Minister receives views on the Serpell report from representative bodies, will he note the views of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), who said on 25 August when opening the Glasgow railcentre that the Government's view was that there would be no substantial cuts in the rail network?
    Mr. Mitchell: I repeat what I have already said. The Government have no programme of major route closures in mind.
    Mr. Fry: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in determining his conclusions on the Serpell report that some of the hysterical opposition was deliberately whipped up pre-publication by the public relations advisors to British Rail, as was admitted in a recent article in The Sunday Times? Will he judge this issue on what is the best service to consumers rather than on any sectional interest, be it British Rail or any other?
    Mr. Mitchell: When my right hon. Friend makes his statement, I think that my hon. Friend will be well satisfied.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give an assurance that when the Secretary of State discusses the Serpell report and its recommendations with the chairman of British Rail the discussion of Government policy will not be restricted to the options contained in the report but that the Government will constructively and positively consider considerable public investment in the electrification of the railway to serve the next century?
    Mr. Mitchell: Investment in the railways depends upon the projects concerned. If a viable proposition is proposed by British Rail, we shall be interested.
    Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend reject wild allegations by Opposition Members about the butchery of the railways? Does my hon. Friend agree that, post-Serpell, the railways are being kept intact? Does he agree also that perhaps the Serpell report has done some damage by confusing options with proposals in the public's mind? In that context, may we have an assurance that services in the far west of England, for example, are absolutely safe, as has already been made clear in previous statements?
    Mr. Mitchell: The diagrams attached to the Serpell report were for illustrative purposes. They were not part of the proposals by Serpell, in spite of what has been said in the campaign of distortion. They are not proposals by British Rail or by the Government. I am happy to give the assurance that no proposals which involve railway lines in my hon. Friend's constituency are in front of me.
    Mr. Stott: I shall try not to use words such as "butchery", but will the Minister confirm what his predecessors have told the House—that the Government do not intend to reduce the existing 12,000 track miles? Does that remain the Government's policy today?
    Mr. Mitchell: "We cannot expect that the network existing at the time of the 1974 Railway Act should remain unchanged for all time." The hon. Gentleman will recognise that extract from Labour's Programme 1982. We agree on this matter. There are no proposals for a savage cut in the route network.

    Liverpool Docks
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has plans to safeguard the future of Liverpool docks.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I was very glad that last month the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company was able to announce its first profit since 1978; the future of the port depends on whether those who work there can continue this success by maintaining and improving the service which they offer to their customers.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that if Britain is to have free ports we must have one in Merseyside for the docks there to survive? This is especially true since the enterprise zone system is attracting industry from the docklands area. Will the Minister at least subsidise the docks to the extent that Hamburg subsidises its port by accepting responsibility for dredging and lighting and for the streets and highways?
    Mr. Mitchell: I see no point in subsidising a port which is making a profit. Free ports are not the responsibility of the Department of Transport.
    Mr. Hill: Should not the Government support the successful ports rather than poor business, because the successful ports are proving to be worth while in terms of imports and exports?
    Mr. Mitchell: So long as my hon. Friend does not suggest that we provide financial support, I am with him. Since the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is making a profit, the question of support does not arise.
    Mr. Alton: Bearing in mind that the deep water container port at Seaforth is successful, will the Minister examine the proposal by the Liverpool university study group, supported by a number of Merseyside local authorities, for a barrage to be erected across the Mersey to provide further deep water facilities, a third estuarial crossing and much needed work for people in the construction industry?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am prepared to consider any proposals by the hon. Gentleman if he cares to write to me.

    Public Transport (London)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had on his proposals to reorganise public transport in London.
    Mrs. Chalker: Our White Paper "Public Transport in London", published on 26 July, invited views from all concerned. I am in the process of discussing with the passenger transport bodies which have written to us various points which they have raised.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister publish the details of the replies received as a result of the consultative procedures? How many pensioners and pensioners organisations have approached her to express their concern about the consequences of the proposals for free passes?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening when my right hon. Friend said clearly that the London Boroughs Association at its meeting on 19 October, confirmed in a letter to my Department on 20 October, said:
    8
    "The Association considers on the setting up of LRT the boroughs should assume responsibility for concessionary fares on the basis of the existing scheme."
    There is no danger to pensioners passes. It is high time that the GLC stopped the scare stories which it is using at ratepayers' expense to resist its own abolition, and realised that the responsibility for pensioners passes has been taken on by the boroughs. They have stated that clearly.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, whoever finally is responsible for public transport in London, there is an acute need for capital investment? Will she take comfort from the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) —the former Secretary of State no less—now regards calls for carefully costed capital projects as desirable, responsible and sensible?
    Mrs. Chalker: I do take note of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) says. I also note the sensible plans which the London Transport Executive has put forward on a three-year basis, which, of course, include plans for capital investment.
    Mr. Cartwright: Does the Minister accept that for many families in the London area the top priority is better integration between the services provided by London Transport and those provided by British Rail? What consultations is the Minister having about that aspect?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am happy to say that I have had a number of consultations with the passenger bodies representing London Transport and British Rail in the London and the south-east area. At the top of my priority list I put better service to the traveller in London because that traveller has suffered time and time again from the vagaries of the GLC's doctrinaire policies, which must stop.

    Traffic Management (London)
    Mr. Traceyasked the Secretary of State for Transport which body will be responsible, when the Greater London Council is abolished, for traffic matters.
    Mrs. Chalker: Our consultation paper seeks views by the end of January on the detailed proposals about those traffic matters which might become the responsibility of individual boroughs and about those which need to be handled on a wider basis.
    Mr. Tracey: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her promotion. In the context of the consultation paper may I focus her mind on the south circular road, since it causes such chaos for the residents and damage to businesses in south London? May we be assured that the Government will look carefully at where the responsibility for developing that collection of signposts will finally rest?
    Mrs. Chalker: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be looking carefully at the future of the south circular road. He will note from paragraph 13 of the paper published on 10 October by my Department that the first individual road mentioned to come under the Secretary of State's responsibility is the A205 south circular road.
    Mr. Maples: Is my hon. Friend aware that under its present powers the GLC has instructed its officers to report by the end of the year on the implementation of a lorry ban in London? Will my hon. Friend examine those powers

    9
    and the powers of her Department to ensure that no hasty or premature decision does irreparable carnage to the city's economy?
    Mrs. Chalker: If there were any proposals for inflicting irreparable damage we should not hesitate to step in. I hope that that will not be necessary and that the GLC will see that there is no point in making a proposal for one part of London which adversely affects a neighbouring part.

    British Rail (Finance)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards finance for British Rail.
    Mr. Ridley: I have today written to the chairman of the British Railways Board, giving him guidance on the Government's policies and, with permission, I will make a statement about this later in the afternoon. As to the current year, the central Government grant to the passenger railway under the public service obligation will be £819 million, subject to certain adjustment factors. The full details of this settlement are given in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) today.
    Mr. Adley: Would it be more convenient to wait until the statement, or should I ask my question now?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to ask his question now.
    Mr. Adley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment, but advise him that some of us will be keeping a wary eye on him in his dealings with the railways. I wish to ask him a simple question: does he believe that a small, crowded, industrial nation such as Britain needs a modern railway system? If he does, when will he provide the finance for British Rail to provide the system?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I congratulate him on a good try, which I hope results in further opportunities to question me later. The Government believe in a railway system of the sort that he described. The statement that I have made provides the necessary funds for that. I shall have more to say about that matter later this afternoon.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one way in which Britain could tackle the unemployment problem would be for British Rail to receive much more generous funding? Is he aware that in my constituency, and in north-east Wales generally, there are proposals to run down the services provided by British Rail, even though that area is greatly afflicted by unemployment? Will he bear that in mind when he makes his statement later?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that additional finance for British Rail or any other nationalised industry means additional taxation, which in turn is likely to mean a reduction in employment in some other part of the economy.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Has the Secretary of State had time to study British Rail's corporate plan, which was published in August 1983? It illustrates the large savings
    10
    that have been made by British Rail, on which it should be congratulated. Does the five-year plan published in that document accord with the right hon. Gentleman's views?
    Mr. Ridley: I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating British Rail on the savings that it has so far made. He will know from the plan and his knowledge of the industry that British Rail is fully aware that it can make even greater savings. That will be the subject of what I have to say later.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend's response to British Rail cover the proposals for electrification that are now with the Department?
    Mr. Ridley: There is only one specific proposal for electrification before the Department. I wish to study it carefully and personally. I hope to make a decision as soon as possible.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a statement later and I shall bear in mind those hon. Members who have not been called during Question Time.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current position regarding the proposed Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Ridley: I hope to receive very shortly the report of the group of British and French banks on private financing of the various schemes that have been advanced for a fixed link.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will favour twin rail tunnels of 6m diameter, and not the elaborate bridge and tunnel combined proposal by the elaborate Ian MacGregor?
    Mr. Ridley: All possible propositions and designs are still open. The banks' report will comment on the cost and financing difficulties associated with each project. We must await that report before forming any judgment.
    Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the many groups that have put forward various proposals feel an urgent need for those alternatives to be narrowed down so that they can put more effort into finding the necessary backing for their schemes?
    Mr. Ridley: There will have to be a rationalisation of the possible proposals at some time. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that much depends on the ability of the private sector to finance any scheme. We must, therefore, tackle finance first.
    Mr. Anderson: Can the Secretary of State confirm that it is firm Government policy that in no circumstances will any public money be at risk, either directly by subvention or indirectly by some form of insurance policy?
    Mr. Ridley: We must await the report of the banks. The Government have made their position clear, and there has been no departure from that position.

    London (Regional Transport Authority)
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport how it is intended that the proposed appointed regional transport authority for London should be funded; and if it will have powers to levy rates.
    Mrs. Chalker: Grants to London regional transport will be paid direct by the Secretary of State. Like those elsewhere, London's ratepayers will need to make some contribution to the cost of their local transport services, and possible mechanisms for this are currently being discussed with local authorities.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that the Government, who have been dedicated to removing quangos from the British system, are now contemplating establishing an unelected quango that will charge rates to London ratepayers who will have no redress against that body?
    Mrs. Chalker: We have an elected Government with more than 80 elected Members of Parliament from the Greater London area. London regional transport will be a management body that will properly manage the way in which the transport provision for this great city should be organised. Back-Bench Members of Parliament will leave us in no doubt about their views on the financing of London regional transport.

    British Rail
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Transport what topics he discussed with the chairman of British Rail during the recess.
    Mr. Ridley: I have discussed a number of railway matters with the new chairman of British Rail, including the Government's objectives for the railways, on which I shall be making a statement later today.
    Mr. Fisher: Did not the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of British Rail the one problem which, above all else, should concern them both? Is it not true that the paltry £819 million cannot possibly provide sufficient finance to improve the service to the general public?
    Mr. Ridley: I have had time to meet the chairman of British Rail only once, and on that occasion he did not raise that matter with me. Therefore, I presume that he feels that he can live with that grant for the current year.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a decision on the London to Hastings railway line has been awaited for some months? During the recess did he take the opportunity to discuss with the chairman of British Rail the future electrification of that important railway link between London and the south coast? If not, will he undertake to do so without delay?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to state that there is no question of that line being discontinued, as was suggested in a recent newspaper article. I ask him to give me a little time to study the problem. I have been in office for only one week. I promise him that I shall try to make a decision as soon as possible, because I realise the urgency.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figure of £819 million that he announced this afternoon is £40 million less than that which the British Rail corporate plan suggested would be the minimum necessary to survive the next 12 months? How does he square that?
    Mr. Ridley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had realised the good news in those figures. In accordance with the remarks of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr.
    12
    Ross), British Rail has made improvements in its cost and productivity, which is reflected in the PSO grant. I am sure that is something that the whole House will welcome.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will list the schemes of privatisation of transport interests which have taken place since May 1979 and the schemes under consideration by the Government.
    Mr. Ridley: Since 1979 the National Freight Corporation and British Transport Docks have both been privatised. Other disposals include British Rail's hovercraft and hotel interests, International Aeradio Ltd. and much of British Airways' hotel investment, as well as long leases on most motorway service areas.
    We have made clear our commitment to introduce private capital into British Airways, BAA and CAA airports, the National Bus Company and Sealink.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of the private entrepreneurs who have taken advantage of the privatisation of bus services not only confine their operations to the most lucrative routes but appear to show a marked preference for buying foreign-made vehicles? Will he therefore take steps to stop these pirates undermining the job prospects of workers in the British coachbuilding industry, for example at Alexanders of Falkirk in my constituency?
    Mr. Ridley: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, on the contrary, in many of the privatisation there has been a remarkable improvement in the service to the consumer, in the economic performance of the unit and in the fortunes of those who work in them. For example, in the National Freight Consortium, shares which the workers bought for £1 are now worth £3·40, and the service has been improved. The hon. Gentleman must put his question about Scottish buses to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the company that bought much of British Rail hotels, Virani Brothers, has utterly refused to meet any of its obligations in relation to pension rights and trade union conditions? If the attempts to get this remedied are frustrated by the shunting around of these hotels from one company to another, what will the Minister do to ensure that these matters are put right?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that Ministers are not responsible for the pension funds of private sector companies. They are not really responsible, except indirectly, for the pension funds of nationalised industries. It must be accepted by the Opposition that these are matters of private negotiation between the two sides of industry, once privatisation has taken place.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Solicitors and Barristers
    Mr. Bellasked the Attorney-General if he will introduce measures to merge the professions of solicitors and banisters into a single profession.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): No, Sir.
    Mr. Bell: I appreciate the brevity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer but if the Government are as determined as they say they are to attack the problem of restrictive practices and to protect the interests of the consumer, should he not direct his attention to the fusion of the legal professions in the interests of the consumer, to the detriment of restrictive practices and to the benefit of all those who have recourse to the law during their lives?
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Benson Commission, which unanimously decided against fusion.
    Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that to fuse the two professions would do nothing to aid the public in terms of costs or delay?
    The Attorney-General: The Royal Commission, which went into the matter in great detail, heard a great deal of evidence. It said that in terms of costs the total amount of work would remain broadly the same and that the intervention of a barrister with deeper specialist experience and an independent view could often assist in early settlement. The point was considered by the Royal Commission, which concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that fusion would materially improve the situation.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Dubsasked the Attorney-General what is the current annual cost of legal aid in (a) criminal cases and (b) civil cases.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The net cost of legal aid in the most recent financial year, 1982–83, was as follows:

    (a) criminal cases

    £106·4 million.

    (b) civil cases

    £68 million.

    In addition, the net cost of the legal advice and assistance scheme in the same year was £30·4 million.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the recently published report on the survey into the grant of legal aid in magistrates' courts shows that there are still wide divergences in the rates of refusal from one court to another? What action does the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to take to give all applicants for legal aid an equal chance regardless of the area in which they happen to live?
    The Solicitor-General: I agree that the survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers does give rise to anxiety about the discrepancies in rates of refusal of legal aid. Section 6 of the Legal Aid Act 1982 will soon be in force. It will give recourse to criminal legal aid committees in respect of refusals of legal aid from magistrates' courts. In addition, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will be giving thought to ways in which it may be possible to bring the criteria on which legal aid should be granted to the knowledge of courts concerned and to explain them more fully.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman inform the House of the cost of the new type of legal aid now in operation in Northern Ireland, where murderers and those guilty of bombing have become "supergrasses" and have a large amount of money paid to them so that they can avoid drawing on legal aid?
    The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is answering a written question on the implications of the "supergrass" controversy later today, but the broad principles on which legal aid is granted or withheld remain the same in all cases.
    Mr. Archer: Does not the survey confirm what has already been said on the subject by the Benson Commission, which was quoted with approval by the Attorney-General in another context a few moments ago? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that since that report was published in October 1979 it has never once been debated in the House and has never even been the subject of a statement? Is it not high time for a statement informing the House of the reaction of the Government to the various proposals in that report?
    The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has indicated recently the respects in which he has already given effect to certain recommendations of the Benson Commission and has set out other recommendations of the Benson Commission to which further consideration is being given. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct when he says that the Benson Commission did draw attention to discrepancies in the rates of refusal of legal aid. When my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor took charge of legal aid in 1980 he set in train the inquiry which has resulted in the report to which reference has been made today.
    Ms. Harmanasked the Attorney-General if Her Majesty's Government will ensure that the new contribution regulations on criminal legal aid will not penalise the wife and children of a defendant.
    The Solicitor-General: The regulations to be made under the Legal Aid Act 1982 will provide for the resources of married couples normally to be aggregated in assessing a defendent's liability to contribute towards the cost of his legal aid. This reflects the principle of the general law, which imposes a duty of mutual support on spouses.
    Ms. Harman: Is not child benefit paid out of public funds to benefit the child? Therefore is it not wrong to regard it as something that can be taken into account when assessing a man's legal aid contribution? That w ill mean that, instead of being spent on children, child benefit will be spent on the legal defence of a man who is charged? Is that not wrong?
    The Solicitor-General: The general principle by which the means of spouses are aggregated is of long standing. It is embraced in the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976, which was enacted by the previous Labour Government, and goes back further than that. It is right that there should be a discretionary power to relieve the operation of this principle in a proper case, but the broad principle is that the assets of the family as a whole should be taken into account. If we were to derogate from that it would be right to stop the system by which deductions are made from the assessable income of a husband to take account of his obligation to support his wife.
    Mr. Archer: How will this work in practice? If contribution orders are to be enforced against the spouse who is charged, but are to be calculated additionally on the resources of the other spouse, what will happen if the husband applies for legal aid but the wife refuses to make

    15
    her resources available to the husband? Will she be compelled to do so, and, if not, will he be expected to pay over money which has never been in his possession?
    Mr. Skinner: That sounds like a barrister's question.
    The Solicitor-General: Enforcement proceedings are taken against the spouse to be charged. It becomes a matter thereafter of considering what the reasons are for the failure to pay if there has been a failure to pay. If there is good reason, which does not carry with it culpability on the part of the spouse who is in arrears, the court will have a right within its discretion, to make an exceptional order. That is a sensible way of going about it.
    Mr. Skinner: That sounds like a barrister's answer.
    The Solicitor-General: That must come as a rare and beneficial surprise to the hon. Gentleman, for he does not hear many answers of that sort. This has to be looked at in a sensible way and the courts will wish to do equity and justice, using their common sense, as they generally do.

    Law Commission
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor last met the chairman of the Law Commission.
    The Attorney-General: Three weeks ago, on Monday 3 October 1983.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the Attorney-General realise the increasing problems for leaseholders of flats and that legislation to enable them to enfranchise and extend their leases is long overdue? Will he urge the Law Commission to speed up those things that are preliminary to what might be a Government Bill to enfranchise and extend leasehold flat leases?
    The Attorney-General: I am sure that everyone knows of the hon. Gentleman's acute interest in this matter. There are certain preliminary matters that have to be resolved and the Law Commission's first report on the subject of rights appurtenant to land will recommend reform of the present law of positive and restrictive covenants. The general form that the Commission's proposals are likely to take is outlined in its last annual report. It is hoped that the report on this subject wil be published early next year.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    World Bank
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what talks he has had during the Summer Adjournment with the World Bank on the debt problems of developing nations.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington on 27 and 28 September. Officials in my Department have had many contacts with the World Bank.
    Mr. Fisher: So what practical steps will the Government take to help reflate world demand to increase developing countries' exports so that they can service and ultimately reduce their international debts?
    Mr. Raison: The Government have given maximum support to the IMF. I believe that the actions taken by the
    16
    IMF in conjunction both with the creditor countries and the debtor countries have proved valuable. Of course, the problem remains a substantial one, but progress is being made.
    Mr. Forman: In Ministers' talks with the World Bank, have the Government pressed the American Administration to be generous in the next IDA replenishment?
    Mr. Raison: We have indeed done so and I hope that that will have effect in due course.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister accept that not only is the IMF scratching about for money, but the World Bank itself is almost on the verge of bankruptcy? Will he also accept that one of the main reasons why the poorest countries in the world are not getting the assistance that many Opposition Members would like to see is that most of the money coming from the IMF and some of that from the World Bank finishes up in the pockets of bankers representing middle-ranking countries, which are up to their necks in debt because of over-expansion and Americanisation during certain times in the past five or six years?
    Mr. Raison: We are doing all that we can to ensure that the next replenishment of IDA is an effective one, but the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks seem to bear little relation to the facts.

    Poor Countries (Investment)
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has for promoting private investment in the poorer countries.
    Mr. Raison: There are a variety of measures already. My officials are considering with other Departments whether there is more we can usefully do on the subject. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions we shall certainly examine them carefully.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the promotion of private investment in poorer countries is a major part of his responsibility and that he proposes to take the lead in Whitehall in co-ordinating policy in this regard?
    Mr. Raison: Yes. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of this matter. The Government are working — effectively, I believe—in this respect. We have been responsible for the negotiations of investment promotion and protection agreements, which can be of considerable value. I believe that developing countries would often do well to rely less on short-term bank loans and more on direct private investment.
    Mr. George Robertson: If the Government can shrug off their sustained complacency in this matter they will surely realise that private capital can only scratch the deep problems besetting the poorest countries of the world. Surely only international action by Governments can get to the root of the problems, which are caused by ludicrously high interest rates and low commodity prices. When will the Government wake up to that fact?
    Mr. Raison: The Government are in no sense complacent about this matter. I believe that private investment can play a useful part, but, as I have already

    17
    made clear this afternoon, we also recognise the great importance of what the IMF and the World Bank are doing, and we are playing our part in that.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the Overseas Development Administration budget for 1983–84 and 1984–85 is applicable to expenditure in the Falkland islands.
    Mr. Raison: It would be premature to give precise forecasts of expenditure in the Falkland islands in 1983–84 and 1984–85, since details of activities to be supported have not yet been finalised. But I expect the balance of the rehabilitation grant of £15 million to be spent in the current year and a substantial proportion of the £31 million development grant in the next two or three years. Estimated expenditure in 1983–84 to dare is approximately £3 million.
    Mr. Foulkes: How does the Minister justify the misappropriation of large parts of the development budget to the Falkland islands, while, at the same time, the Government are cutting British aid to some of the poorest countries in the world where people are starving to death?
    Mr. Raison: It is quite untrue to talk about misappropriation of my programme to help the Falkland islands. They are among our dependencies, to whom we have a prior obligation anyway, and events last year will undoubtedly have reinforced that in the minds of the overwhelming majority in this country.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much greater public support in this country for aid to the Falkland islands than there is for continued aid to Zimbabwe, where air force officers acquitted by the courts are still imprisoned?
    Mr. Raison: I do not intend to draw such a comparison, but I reiterate that aid to the Falklands is justified and necessary.

    Commonwealth Development Corporation
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
    Mr. Raison: I have no immediate plans for such a meeting, but I meet the chairman frequently.
    Mr. Canavan: On the matter of the CDC involvement in the NGPI project at Agusan Del Sur in the Philippines, why did the British authorities exert pressure for the non-renewal of the contract of a British VSO worker who was investigating allegations of the violation of human rights in the area where CDC involvement is planned?
    Mr. Raison: I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Alton: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the CDC, will he also discuss the representations that Mr. Frank Judd of the VSO has made to many hon. Members about the organisation's fears and worries concerning the continuation of its programme? Will the hon. Gentleman also consider the possibility of removing full-cost fees for students from Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Raison: If I were to discuss those matters with the chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation he might think that I was out of my mind. They have nothing to do with him.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Minister meets the chairman of the CDC, will he draw to his attention the fact that hon. Members, while having a high regard for the CDC, will exercise the right to criticise individual projects if they feel that they are unworthy? Had we not done so, certain improvements in human rights in Mindanao would not have taken place.
    Mr. Raison: Of course hon. Members have the right to discuss and to criticise. After all, it is a free country and a free House. I am prepared to accept that some of that discussion has been of value, but the important thing i s that the steps that are taken now are effective.
    Mr. Moynihan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the safeguards built into the proposed oil palm development project in Loreto in the Philippines are not only unprecendented, but are recognised as being highly effective in safeguarding that potential project as a viable and important one for the CDC?
    Mr. Raison: I know that my hon. Friend has just been out there to look at these matters on the ground. I am grateful to him for what he says.

    Brandt Commission (Report)
    Mr. Joan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on his response to the Brandt Commission report entitled "Common Crisis".
    Mr. Raison: None, Sir.
    Mr. Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is tremendous support in this country for the original Brandt report and for the supplementary report? Will he therefore use his best efforts inside the Government to reduce the massive arms expenditure in which the Government are involved in with the extra £10,000 million for Trident, and urge that we should devote more resources to helping the two-thirds of humanity who are suffering from poverty and want?
    Mr. Raison: I am aware that there has been considerable support in this country for both the first and the second Brandt report. However, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that while I believe very strongly in the value of our aid programme, I also believe that this country has to be properly defended.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with international debt running at some £900 billion, all that has happened so far has merely papered over the cracks? Has not the time arrived when we should be looking at the possibility of a Bretton Woods style conference to make sure that we can help with the long-term problems of the world, which are getting worse by the day?
    Mr. Raison: I am not yet persuaded that such a conference would necessarily be helpful. First, we should recognise the gravity of the problem, as my hon. Friend has expressed it. Secondly, we should recognise that our existing institutions have been working very hard and have had some considerable achievements in tackling the problem.

Maze Prison
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I shall, with permission Mr. Speaker, take this earliest possible opportunity to make a statement to the House on the escape from the Maze prison in Northern Ireland last month and on the action taken since then. I should add that because of official business in the United States of America later today, I am making this statement before those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I am grateful to him and to the House for allowing me to do so.
On 25 September, at approximately 2.45 pm, a number of Republican prisoners produced guns in H block 7 of the Maze prison. They overpowered prison officers and shot the officer in the block's central control room in the head. They put on the officers' uniforms. About an hour later, still in control of the block, prisoners took over a meal delivery van on its arrival, and the prison officer driver was forced at gunpoint to drive 38 of the prisoners to the main gate of the prison. On the way, the van passed through two manned gates without being searched. At the main gate the prisoners disembarked and a fight with prison staff ensued during which a number of prison officers received serious injuries and a prison officer was stabbed to death. I deeply regret his death, and know the whole House will join me in extending sympathy to his family. The prisoners opened the main gate, but the exit was immediately blocked by a prison officer's car. The 38 prisoners then sought to escape on foot and were chased by prison officers. As a number of the escaping prisoners were wearing prison officers' uniform and some of the prison officers were in civilian clothes, the Army sentry in the tower at the main gate could not clearly identify which individuals were prison officers and which were prisoners. He did, however, open fire and wound one escaping prisoner whom he had seen shoot a pursuing prison officer in the leg. Ten prisoners were quickly apprehended and returned to the prison. Immediately the alarm was given, the RUC and the Army instituted very extensive arrangements both in the immediate vicinity of the prison and more widely throughout the Province. Immediate contact was established with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland, who readily gave their full cooperation. Within the next few days a further nine escapers were recaptured, leaving 19 still unlawfully at large. The search for them continues unremittingly.
On the day following the escape, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I invited Sir James Hennessy, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, to conduct an inquiry into security arrangements at Her Majesty's prison, Maze, bearing on the escape on Sunday 25 September; to make relevant recommendations for the improvement of security at the prison; and to report to me as soon as possible.
Sir James is aided in his inquiry by a full team of inspectors and by other staff of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons, numbering 10 in all. It is not yet possible to say when the report will be completed. The House will understand that the arrangements at the Maze are inevitably complex and there are a great many witnesses to be interviewed, some of whom are still recovering from injuries. However, I know that Sir James and his team are pursuing the task with urgency as well as with a view to
20
its being as thorough and searching as it can be. When the report is complete it is my intention to make public as full an account as possible of the matter consistent with the future security of the prison.
In parallel with the start of Sir James's inquiry, all governors of prisons in Northern Ireland immediately undertook urgent reviews of their security systems and procedures. Both in the Maze prison and elsewhere there has been additional searching of prisoners, cells, prison workshops and other areas. The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army have assisted in searching prisons in line with long-established procedures. Certain additional physical security measures are being implemented, including the provision of protective screens for the control rooms of each H block in the Maze prison; and a more secure electronic locking system has been fitted to the main gate on a trial basis, which if found satisfactory will be linked to a specially constructed bullet-proof control post. Other security measures are also being taken.
The escape of so many prisoners and the killing of a prison officer represent a setback to law enforcement in Northern Ireland, at a time when terrorist organisations have been under increasing pressure. We are dealing with determined and violent men, and there can be no let-up in the measures that we are taking. The escape also adds to the already considerable difficulties in managing the prisons in Northern Ireland. I am anxious, in reporting to the House today, to indicate what action has been taken since the escape as well as to outline the facts of the incident as far as they can be established in advance of the Hennessy report. The House can be assured that we shall do everything possible to identify why things went wrong on 25 September, and will take all appropriate steps in the light of those findings.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches join the Secretary of State in extending sympathy to the family of the prison officer who met his death and to those others who were terribly injured. We thank the Secretary of State for making his statement and for the appointment of Sir James Hennessy to conduct an inquiry into security arrangements at Her Majesty's prison, Maze. I think that we should await the report before expressing our final views.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, on the face of it, the objective in building the Maze prison seems to have been eroded? I remind the House that it was built to end special category status, the compound system and the university of terrorism. No longer were prisoners to be segregated into their compounds, with free association, to do their teaching and plotting. They were to be kept in cellular accommodation in the legs of the H blocks. However, it seems from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that each of the H blocks is now reserved for groupings of prisoners, with a lot more association than was intended originally. We are back to the compound system and segregation. In my opinion this was asking for trouble if searches and other forms of security were not stepped up. I think that there are some people who pressed for this kind of segregation and who should keep their complaints to a minimum today.
If the Secretary of State decided to put all his bad eggs in one basket, could he say when H block 7 was last searched before the escape and how it was searched— that is important? If it was searched, what was found? Has

21
the right hon. Gentleman any idea in which countries the 19 escaped prisoners are? If so, is he receiving the full cooperation of those countries to secure the apprehension and return of the escapees to the British authorities? Finally, will he assure the House that, when it is received, the report will be debated?
Mr. Prior: Whether the report is debated is a matter for the House, but I shall make a full statement to the House when the report is received. I want it to be published in full, save for any matters that might raise security problems at the prisons.
We do not know the countries to which these people have fled. It is suspected that some are now in the South, but we do not know. All that I can say is that we have had the maximum co-operation from the Irish Government, and I have no doubt that they are as keen as we are to capture these prisoners. The block had been searched wing by wing. The last search of a wing took place two weeks before the escape.
A number of the blocks are now segregated, because of the troubles that there have been, and also because there are many more Republican than Loyalist prisoners. The block in question was unsegregated until the Loyalist problems of October 1982. Since then it has been a Republican block. I believe that there are still seven wings in the Maze prison which contain both Protestants and Catholics. We shall do all that we can to keep as many mixed wings as possible.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State admit that the chief inspector's inquiry will be limited to considering the responsibility of prison officers and will take no account of the changes in the Northern Ireland Office's prison policies—which have already been referred to by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)— particularly those made under the regime of Lord Gowrie?
Is not the inquiry further limited by the requirement that prison officers' statements must be made in writing, and signed, with no guarantee of absolute confidentiality?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the financial considerations that led to delays even in the follow-up operations—which were not as immediate as the statement suggests—will also be excluded from the inquiry?
Mr. Prior: The duty helicopter was over the prison within 10 minutes of the alarm being given, and the brigade commander and the Chief Constable were in their operations room within 20 minutes of the alarm being given. It is therefore unfair to say that there was any delay in commencing the operations. The Chief Constable and the GOC will report to me on these matters in the near future.
Sir James Hennessy will have an absolute right to report on all aspects of the prison regime, including developments during the past two years I await his report with interest.
Following the end of the hunger strike, increased association between the wings was allowed in certain circumstances, but as the segregation policy pursued by both Loyalist and Republican prisoners resulted in the protest of the Loyalists in October 1982 there has been no free association in the block in question. That matter therefore does not arise. Any of these matters may, of course, be considered.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On behalf of my colleagues, I should like to associate myself with the expression of sympathy to Prison Officer Ferris's wife and family.
Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that all the facts uncovered by Sir James Hennessy's inquiry will be made public? Why were the breaks in the perimeter fence, which were reported to the Northern Ireland Office before the escape, not dealt with? Can the Secretary of State say whether the steps that he has now taken will prevent guns from getting into the hands of prisoners? If no guns had got into the prison, the gaol break would not have occurred. Why were all the watchtowers not manned? Was it to save money that dummy soldiers were placed in some of the watchtowers? As this was the greatest gaol break in British history, does the Secretary of State not consider that there should be ministerial resignations?
Mr. Prior: In the past few weeks the hon. Gentleman has made a number of accusations, very few of which bear any relation to the truth. That includes his reference to watchtowers not being manned and to dummies in the watchtowers. There have never been dummies in the watchtowers at the Maze prison.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Sir James' report?
Mr. Prior: There are no breaks in the proper fence of the prison. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a car park which has some protection but which in any case forms no part of the defences of the prison. All these matters will be considered by Sir James Hennessy and included in his report.
On the question of resignations, I have made my position abundantly clear and I shall stick to it.
Mr. Stephen Ross: We on the Liberal Benches express our condolences to the family of the prison officer who lost his life. From my personal knowledge of prison officers in general, and in particular those in Northern Ireland, I believe that they are upright men doing a fairly lousy job with distinction.
Will the attention of Sir James Hennessy be drawn to the problems caused by the concessions on the wearing of civilian clothing in the prison? When I was last in the Maze prison I could not tell the difference between prisoners in civilian clothing and the civilian instructors. Some confusion seems to have been caused.
Mr. Prior: Sir James Hennessy will consider, and give his views on, the wearing of civilian clothing by prisoners. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about prison officers. Some of the prison officers acted with extreme courage and heroism, and deserve the utmost credit for what they did. The prison service in Northern Ireland has a very difficult job, and we should recognise that before we lay any criticism at its door.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why so many terrorists were concentrated in one place at one time?
Mr. Prior: There are three prisons in Northern Ireland, and there are terrorists in all three, but until now the Maze has been considered to be the most secure. No fewer than 250 prisoners in the Maze, out of a total of 830, are serving either life sentences or are detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. The presence of so many life prisoners of a fairly

23
young age makes necessary a form of prison regime which at the moment is available only at the Maze. That is why there are so many rotten eggs in one basket.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State accept that the foul murder this morning, less than three miles from the border with the Irish Republic, of my constituent, Mr. Cyrus Campbell, was the inevitable result of the boost given to Republican terrorism by the Maze escape? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, as 19 terrorists are still on the run, many of whom are convicted murderers, he has ordered any significant increase in the number of troops along the frontier with the Irish Republic, where terrorists have invariably sought refuge?
Mr. Prior: We all share the distress caused by the murder of another member of the UDR in the hon. Gentleman's constituency this morning, but it would be wrong to say that the murder resulted from the outbreak of prisoners from the Maze. Regrettably, there are many other reasons why people in Northern Ireland have been murdered in the past few weeks, months and years.
There was an increase in security activity on the border immediately after the outbreak and both the GOC and the Chief Constable know perfectly well that if they require additional resources at any time they have only to ask for them.
Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most disquieting aspect of this incident is the fact that there were firearms in the prison? Can he assure us that that aspect will be considered? Can he also assure us that, as well as reporting what happened, Sir James Hennessy will prescribe what should be done for the future?
Mr. Prior: Where they would be of use to anyone wishing to escape, suggestions about what should be done will obviously not be published. For the most part, everything else will be published. Recommendations applying to all the Northern Ireland prisons, or elsewhere, could certainly be contained in the report. I agree with my hon. Friend that the fact that pistols were in the prison is perhaps the most disturbing aspect.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Given that the events described by the Secretary of State this afternoon are grave and calamitous, and are far more serious than he described them when he said that they have set back law enforcement, will he accept that if the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is to have any meaning in this country his personal position cannot turn on the mere findings——
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman would not resign his seat to fight an election.
Mr. Maclennan: —of the Hennessy inquiry, when 38 of the most dangerous prisoners in his custody have escaped?
Mr. Prior: If I had felt that ministerial responsibility was such that in this case I should have resigned, I certainly should have done so. It would be a matter for resignation if the report of the Hennessy inquiry showed that what happened was the result of some act of policy that was my responsibility, or that I failed to implement
24
something that I had been asked to implement, or should have implemented. In that case, I should resign. The IRA may have had something of a success to relate about the escape, but it would be as nothing compared with the success that it would have to relate if it forced the resignation of the Secretary of State under such circumstances.
Sir William van Straubenzee: I appreciate the wisdom of my right hon. Friend's advice to delay judgment until after Sir James has reported, but is there not one deceptively simple lesson that we can draw in the meantime from this and other events? That lesson is that however sophisticated the mechanisms—and in the Maze they are highly sophisticated — security ultimately rests on the constant reiteration of security procedures and drills by human beings. One of the results of the great successes that my right hon. Friend mentioned — successes for which the Government can certainly take credit—is that in some places in Northern Ireland there may have been a lessening of the will to maintain security and constantly to reiterate security drills.
Mr. Prior: I do not wish to prejudge anything that Sir James Hennessy may say on this subject, but constant attention needs to be paid at all times to all matters concerning security in Northern Ireland, whether they relate to prisons or to the relentless struggle against terrorism outside.
Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, after the Maze breakout, it was only following industrial action by prison officers that he increased the number of posts at Magilligan prison by 20 to improve security there? If that increase in the number of posts was needed, why was industrial action necessary to achieve it? If the increase was not needed, why did he allow it?
Mr. Prior: This is a very difficult matter. In the past two years the number of prison officers in Northern Ireland has increased by 10 per cent. There are 3,000 prison officers, for 2,500 prisoners, which is a far higher ratio for maximum security prisoners than in any other part of the United Kingdom. We must balance the proper requirements of an efficiently run prison system against reasonable grounds for expenditure. We do not know of any cases in Northern Ireland where sufficient resources have not been made available in the past two years. After such an outbreak there are bound to be demands from one quarter or another for additional resources to be devoted to a particular cause. They must be examined, and they are at present the subject of negotiations.
Mr. Alexander Pollock: How much more compulsory overtime may be required of prison staff now, compared with, for example, a year ago?
Mr. Prior: In the past few months overtime has increased and amounts to 15 hours a week. That is far higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. The amount of overtime is, of course, a matter of considerable concern, because of tiredness and its effect on prison officers. All those matters will need to be looked at and a balance must be maintained.
Mr. John David Taylor: I should like to associate myself with the Secretary of State in expressing sympathy to Mrs. Ferris and her two sons over the murder of Mr. Ferris, a prison officer and a constituent of mine.

25
Why have some of those who participated in the murder of the prison officer, who have been caught and returned to the Maze, not been prosecuted for the murder?
Mr. Prior: That is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The decision rests with him, not with me.
Mr. Peter Robinson: How can the Secretary of State speak in such glowing terms about the follow-up operation when, one month after the escape, outbuildings and properties a very short distance from the prison have yet to be searched? What public scrutiny will there be of the report on the breakout from the Chief Constable and the GOC in Northern Ireland? What pressure can be taken off the Maze by the new prison planned at Maghaberry, and why is there such delay in opening it? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) about segregation might well have been to the contrary, in that if there had not been segregation in the H block it is very likely that a number of Loyalist prisoners would have been killed?
Mr. Prior: There is certainly a strong view that had there not been segregation we would have known a good deal more about what was likely to happen. I personally think that segregation is wrong. Those who go to prison should be treated as prisoners, regardless of whether they are Loyalists or Republicans. It is a mistake to try to differentiate between the two. I want to place that firmly on the record.
My hon. Friend referred to the searching of premises immediately outside the prison. The forces of law and order in Northern Ireland have a very difficult job to do. They are constantly being attacked by people in Northern Ireland for being inefficient and for not searching this or doing that. We should be extremely grateful to them for what they do. At times their actions may be criticised, but we should bear in mind the overall standard and efficiency
26
of both the RUC and the Army. We can all produce tittle tattle about what did not happen or should have happened, but the fact is that the security forces have a difficult job to do. They are responsible to me. I inquire into these matters, but I have no intention of allowing anyone to think that I do not have full confidence in them.
Mr. Tom Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the overwhelming support of the majority of hon. Members for the manner in which he intends to proceed? Will he confirm that the security statistics for the nine months ending 30 September show beyond any shadow of doubt that there has been a marked improvement this year compared with previous years?
Mr. Prior: I am chary of making any prophecies about the security situation in Northern Ireland. At the moment there is an improvement, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said, but we shall not be satisfied until all terrorists have been caught and peace has been restored to Northern Ireland. At present, we are some way off that.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: What assurances can my right hon. Friend give the House that the security forces now have adequate contingency plans to deal with any future breakout? This issue cannot await the publication of the Hennessy report.
Mr. Prior: The security forces have contingency plans, which they practise from time to time, in case of a breakout. In the light of the breakout and what happened, they will immediately review those plans to see whether they can be improved in any way. One of the great problems was that the contingency plans involved both an inner and outer ring. It is thought, in the light of experience, that the inner ring was drawn in too closely. Prisoners had passed beyond it by the time it was set up. Those are matters that must be looked at urgently, and they are being considered by the GOC.

Grenada
4 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the situation in Grenada. The House will be aware of the violent events of last week on the independent Commonwealth island of Grenada. Her Majesty's Government join with those in the Caribbean region and elsewhere who have deplored the killings, and we view with grave concern the existing state of unconstitutional government and insecurity on the island.
We are particularly conscious that there are some 200 British citizens on Grenada, including a number of British tourists. The resident representative of the British High Commission has been active in maintaining contact with this community and reports that no British citizens appear to be in immediate danger. The Deputy High Commissioner also visited Grenada from Barbados yesterday to make contact with the new authorities and to speak with the Governor-General. He found the island calm but tense and confirmed that neither the Governor-General nor members of the British community appeared to be in any imminent danger.
None the less, the position remains extremely volatile. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Government have instructed HMS Antrim to be prepared to evacuate our community should the situation worsen and make this necessary.
Meanwhile, we remain in close touch with the Governments of the other Commonwealth Caribbean countries, whose leaders have been meeting in Trinidad. We shall be discussing with them and with other interested states the best prospects of helping to achieve a restoration of constitutional government, peace and security in Grenada. I shall keep the House informed of developments.
Mr. Denis Healey: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making the statement. The Opposition fully share his concern at what has happened in Grenada during the last week. Military dictatorships are all too common in that part of the world. I think that I am correct in saying that this is the first time that anything like one has been established in a Commonwealth country in the Caribbean. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to ensure the evacuation of any British citizens who wish to leave the island and his intention to concert policy with other Commonwealth members in the Caribbean.
Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that there is no question of American military intervention on the island? It could only make the position worse.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I know of no such intention.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any information about the alleged Cuban presence on Grenada and the role that it has played or is playing? Is he aware of the widespread belief in the Caribbean during the past two or three years that Grenada should be regarded as part of a Soviet game-plan, and the new airports as a jumping-off ground aimed primarily at Trinidad and Venezuela? Should we not, therefore, see the
28
incident as a serious development in the global struggle for power and not just as an isolated seizure of power by a group of the military?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: One must take account of all those factors in considering such a matter. It must be remembered that Prime Minister Bishop, who lost his life in the recent coup d'état, was a close friend and associate of Dr. Castro, that there are several hundred Cuban advisers on the island already, and that the Cuban Government have lamented the death of Prime Minister Bishop and deplored the recent events. It is difficult to conclude—although my hon. Friend is correct to remind us of the facts — that in that respect the matter has changed significantly.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the Secretary of State think that, where a group has seized power in a Commonwealth country with a small population, the British Government have any responsibility to do anything?.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The British Government obviously are concerned with such an event in any independent country, particularly one that has only recently secured that independence and freedom as a result of decisions of the House, but Grenada is an independent country. Our concern and what we are prepared to do about it must be determined by recognition of that fact.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the desirability of avoiding any American intervention to safeguard American citizens, can the Foreign Secretary say whether HMS Antrim would have the appropriate authority to assist also in the removal of any Americans who might be at risk? When will the new airport on Grenada be ready? Is it a fact that the airport would enable Mig27s to overfly Venezuela if the Cubans were to land them there? Will the Foreign Secretary raise the matter at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference and ascertain what is the position when a nasty dictatorship, with no regard for human rights, seeks to retain its membership of the Commonwealth?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not in a position to tell my hon. Friend the date of completion of the airfield on the island. The United States Government have explained that their own naval forces in the area are in that position solely because of the requirement that may arise to rescue their own very sizeable community in Grenada. There is no reason to doubt that their forces would be sufficient to achieve that purpose, but I take account of the point raised by my hon. Friend.
With regard to the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government, plainly there, as everywhere else in the Commonwealth, there must be concern at an incident of this kind, but it is too early to say whether any conclusion would or would not be right at that stage.
Mr. John Fraser: As I represent tens of thousands of West Indians, may I tell the Foreign Secretary of their openly expressed sense of outrage and grief at what has happened in Grenada? Will it be the aim of the Foreign Secretary's policy, in conjunction with his Commonwealth colleagues, to seek not only the restoration of constitutional government but democracy in Grenada, without undue veto or pressure from the United States, Cuba or any other country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said about the sense of outrage felt by members of the Caribbean population in Britain, as in the Caribbean itself, at what has taken place. It must be remembered that the Government who have been ousted came to power in 1979 as a result of a military coup. I am sure that it would be right for us to take counsel with the Caribbean Commonwealth Governments to see whether there are any steps which can be taken to help promote the prospects of the return of democratic government in the island of Grenada.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Has the Foreign Secretary been told that last year members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs visited Havana and Grenada and produced a report with recommendations? Is he aware that among those recommendations in respect of Grenada was a recommendation that Her Majesty's Government should strengthen diplomatic presence there, and that they should initiate talks with a view to starting a bilateral aid programme? Has he been told that in Cmnd. 8819 those recommendations were turned down? Does he agree that the Select Committee might have been right?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am, of course, aware of the recommendations of that Select Committee. The decisions taken in respect of them have been explained in the White Paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, I do not believe that an event of this kind would have been significantly influenced by acting on those recommendations.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that all those, including myself, who recently visited Grenada, and met some of the Ministers who have since been murdered, will condemn the actions of the military in Grenada? But have not the Government some responsibility for the event, having not only turned down the recommendations of the Select Committee but, along with United States of America, undermined the economy of Grenada since the moderate regime, led by Bishop, took over? The Stalinists who are now in control, having executed moderate Socialists who wanted to keep their links with Great Britain, are there as a direct result of some of our Government's policies. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the only reason why the Cubans are in Grenada building the airport is that, when Bishop came to Britain and America for help to build a long-planned airport, we turned him down?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's view. No doubt he is better qualified than I to make judgments about moderation between Socialists and Communists.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is better qualified than the Foreign Secretary to make judgments on anything.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about possible American intervention was not at all reassuring? Will he and the British Government advise the American Government than any intervention by the United States would be unhelpful? Is he aware that progess towards democracy such as my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken of will not be achieved by any form of external military intervention?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping in the closest possible touch with the United States Government and the Caribbean Governments to which I have referred. I have no reason to think that American military intervention is likely. The United States Government have explained that the movement and presence of their naval vessels in the area is prompted solely by the same reasoning which Led us to consider the positioning of HMS Antrim—to rescue a sizeable American community in Grenada if circumstances deteriorate and evacuation is necessary.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Foreign Secretary making representations to the United States Government to withdraw their fleet, which is anchored off Grenada? Its presence can only exacerbate the situation and be a prelude to a possible landing on Grenada by American forces?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already explained twice that the presence of the United States naval vessels is not prompted by the consideration that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The vessels are there for the reason that the United States Government and we have given. There are more than 1,000 United States citizens and several hundred British citizens on Grenada. It is only prudent that when Governments of democratic countries are faced with such circumstances they take steps to provide for the rescue of their citizens if necessary. That is the reason for the presence of the naval vessels.

Lebanon
4.12 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Early in the morning of 23 October, in carefully co-ordinated attacks, two huge bombs exploded in premises in Beirut occupied by United States and French units of the multinational force. At least 160 United States marines and 34 French troops were killed.
The whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the United States and France and to the families of all those who lost their lives in this tragedy. We condemn without qualification those responsible for this hideous act.
We have offered all possible help in the evacuation and treatment of casualties, both on the spot and in RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. We are in the closest touch with our partners in the multinational force and with the Lebanese Government.
The safety of our troops is naturally uppermost in our minds at this time. The commander-in-chief, United Kingdom land forces, General Kitson, is going to Beirut to consider on the spot what may need to be done.
I should like to pay tribute to the coolness and courage of our troops in difficult and dangerous circumstances. The staff of our embassy in Beirut is also to be commended.
The contributors to the MNF want one thing—the restoration of the Lebanese Government's authority and the independence of the Lebanon. Without the presence of the MNF contingents, it is very doubtful whether the fragile ceasefire which was agreed on 26 September would have come about. Our own contingent, at the request of all of the parties concerned, has been providing a guard for the meetings of the security committee set up to discuss the implementation of the ceasefire.
National reconciliation talks are to open in Geneva on the 31st of this month. In the light of this latest tragedy, it is now all the more important for all parties in Lebanon to get together urgently to settle their differences by negotiation.
Mr. Denis Healey: I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in condemning the bombing and express our sympathy for the families of those who were killed or injured. I also welcome the help that British forces gave to casualties.
The horror and shock caused by the incident is still fresh in our minds and that is not the best time to take new decisions which might have long-term consequences. I hope that the Foreign Secretary agrees that the desire for revenge is not a good counsellor, especially when responsibility for the atrocities is obscure. Reprisals which are taken in the heat of anger can inflict suffering on the innocent and make existing circumstances even more difficult.
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that a great deal of circumstantial evidence suggests that the bombings might be connected with the war in the Gulf, which has already caused up to one thousand times as many deaths as yesterday's bombings in Beirut? Can he confirm a report of a Western initiative in the Security Council and that the Soviet Government are prepared to acquiesce to an end to the Gulf war? The Opposition would warmly welcome
32
such an initiative as the first sign of contact between Russia and the United States which might reduce the risk of their being dragged into direct confrontation against their will.
Yesterday's tragic events are bound to increase already widespread doubts about the role and purpose of the multinational force. It is quite clear that it has not kept the peace although it might, as the Foreign Secretary said, have contributed to the recent ceasefire. However, I must remind the Foreign Secretary that that is the 179th ceasefire in a civil war that has already lasted nearly 10 years.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the multinational force has not restored the authority of the Lebanese Government even in Beirut—the only area in which they have the authority to act—as the Shia Muslims have established a no-go area in West Beirut whence the bombings appear to have been launched?
It appears that almost any action taken by the multinational force is regarded by one group or another as hostile to it. Therefore, the only real role of that force is to act as sitting ducks for terrorist attack.
We want a successful outcome to the talks on national reconciliation as much as the Foreign Secretary. However, I hope that the Foreign Secretary agrees that those talks can succeed only if the Gemayel Government are prepared to modify the 1943 constitution to give the 60 per cent. Muslim majority in Lebanon a fairer share of power. The Gemayel Government will have no incentive to make those concessions as long as we say, as the Prime Minister did in her joint press conference with President Mitterrand last week, that the multinational force will stay until a government of national reconciliation is established. That is especially so as the multinational force has taken the side of the Gemayel Government in the civil war more than once.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary can assure us at the very least that there will be no increase in the British contingent. I hope that he can confirm what the Minister of State said on television yesterday — that the Government are reconsidering the wisdom of continuing to contribute to the multinational force. According to Mr. Cheysson yesterday, the French Government are reconsidering the French role.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will keep the House regularly informed of developments as I believe that the House is now as sceptical as the United States Congress about the wisdom of continuing to make a contribution in existing circumstances.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East, (Mr. Healey) concluded by emphasising the wisdom of continuing to make a contribution in present circumstances. He was right to do that as the initial contribution and establishment of the force was supported by Opposition parties.
Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I said the exact opposite. I said that there is growing doubt about the wisdom of continuing to make a contribution. I did not say that I supported such a continuation without conditions.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I was making no such misunderstanding. I was saying that the right hon. Gentleman concluded by dealing with the wisdom of continuing to make a contribution. I was merely reminding

33
him and the House that the establishment of the force and a British contingent's participation in it was accepted on both sides of the House. It was a difficult decision and it has remained so. The force is there to enhance the prospect of restoring the authority of the Government in an independent sovereign Lebanon on the basis of conciliation between the various groups in that country. The force cannot be expected to remain there indefinitely, but it will stay for so long as it plays a useful part in promoting the peace process. As I said in my initial answer, it is important for the Government of the Lebanon and all the factions and groups in that country to understand the urgent need for them to settle their differences by a process of conciliation, which means changes on all sides. At present, there is no intention to change the role or size of the force but, clearly, all those countries contributing to the multinational force will now need to reconsider that matter.
Everyone would have wished the force to have established a durable ceasefire, but to have established this breathing space and an opportunity for conciliation to be taken a stage further is at least a step forward. The tragedy of yesterday is a measure of the price that the dozen countries, not only European countries, which are deploying more than 10,000 troops in various groups in the area, are prepared to pay to promote peace there. They are paying a heavy price for doing that. I reiterate the hope that those in the Lebanon who are directly involved will move with a sense of urgency to settle their differences in the light of the sacrifices being made by the rest of the world on their behalf.
Mr. Healey: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm my interpretation of his concluding remarks, which is that the Government are not giving those involved in the talks a blank cheque to continue indefinitely, as the Prime Minister suggested last week? Will he confirm that if rapid progress is not made towards a durable settlement, he will consult with the other Governments contributing to the multinational force with a view to withdrawing it?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We are in close consultation with the other Governments. I spent the weekend with the Foreign Secretaries of the European contributors to the multinational force and with the Foreign Secretaries of those countries which intend to contribute to the new observer force that may be sent to the Lebanon. I shall certainly keep in touch with those countries, and keep the House closely informed.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the House is interested in this important subject, but right hon. and hon. Members should ask short questions, as we have a big day ahead of us.
Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whatever doubts there may originally have been about contributing to the peacekeeping force, a withdrawal on Britain's part today would be seen as a capitulation to terrorism? Does he further agree that without the multinational peacekeeping force we would be faced with a Syrian-Soviet occupation of the Lebanon, which could not conceivably be in the interests of the West or of world peace?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my right hon. Friend suggested, a Syrian-Soviet occupation of the Lebanon
34
would be neither a sensible nor an attractive prospect for the West or world peace. That is one reason why we wish to see established an independent sovereign Lebanon without the intrusion of foreign forces and with the respect of neighbouring states. I also agree with my right hon. Friend that today is not the right time to question our presence in the multinational force, nor to reach a conclusion such as he suggested.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What useful result do the Government think will be achieved by the stationing in the Lebanon of 97 British troops?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The 97 British troops form part of a much larger force that contains three other national contributors. Their presence on behalf of the United Kingdom, together with representatives of 11 other nations, represents peoples committed to the process of recreating peaceful conditions in which an independent sovereign Lebanese Government can survive. If that were to happen, if our presence were to prevent from happening events such as those referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and if it were to prevent the outbreak of the sort of slaughter that we have seen so often in other parts of the world, it would be a useful result.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: While recognising that we should not break with our allies at this time, will my right hon. and learned Friend take steps to dispel the impression that he is in favour of withdrawing our troops from Belize — where they are safely and efficiently doing a most important job—but wishes them to remain in the Lebanon, where they are manifestly doing no good and may be doing harm at considerable danger to themselves?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I say nothing about the first matter, which does not arise out of my statement. I do not accept my hon. Friend's conclusion that our troops in Lebanon are doing no good, but considerable harm.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not this incident illustrate yet again that in that region we should be pursuing a policy far more independent of American policy? Why does not the Foreign Secretary encourage a joint United States and Soviet Union initiative, leading to a Geneva conference to which all parties to the Palestinian and the Lebanon disputes could be invited?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would welcome a spread of the areas in which the Soviet Union was willing to play its part in contributing to the process of peacekeeping in other parts of the world. I take the opportunity to answer the point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in relation to Iraq, which arises on this question. There is no reason at present to conclude, although the facts are not certain, that there is a link between this incident and the war between Iraq and Iran in the Gulf. It remains a possibility, but it is certain that initiatives may be undertaken soon in the United Nations with a view to securing a conclusion that may lay the foundations for an end to the war in the Gulf: If such a resolution were to pass the Security Council, it would need the concurrence of the Soviet Union, and that remains to be seen. The passing of such a resolution would not bring about an end to the war, but it is being considered closely by the Government and by several other countries.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that several hon. and noble Members of both Houses recently visited Cyprus and saw at first hand the support work carried out by British forces in Cyprus for the MNF in Lebanon? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence our favourable impressions of the work that they do and the support that they give so well? Will he comment on the emphasis that that gives to the importance of Cyprus in relation to the conflict in the middle east?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take note of what my hon. Friend says and welcome his tribute to the role played and the work carried out by Her Majesty's forces. I hope very much that that will go out as the general view of hon. Members on both sides of the House, thus contributing to the support that the troops need for their difficult task.
Mr. Russell Johnston: May I associate the Liberal party with the sympathy expressed for the French and American soldiers in what was without doubt, as the Secretary of State said, a most hideous crime? I congratulate the Secretary of State on retaining a presence in Beirut that has been careful, low-key but nevertheless supportive of a peaceful solution. I ask him not to wash his hands of the matter hastily. He must make an assessment of the value of what our troops are doing, but he must not do that without the most careful consultation with the other forces involved. I hope that he will do that.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the most important factor in Lebanese politics is the complex confessional structure of the country? Can he explain how he believes that foreign army patrols will help the Lebanese Government to resolve those problems, and will he tell the House why we are supporting this Lebanese Government rather than any other?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: This Lebanese Government was elected under the constitution — [HON. MEMBERS: "When?".] The President of the Lebanese Government was elected by an overwhelming majority of the Lebanese Parliament, in which all Lebanese groups are represented. I ask my hon. Friend to bear it in mind that in such matters it is not for the House or for any group to invent or to design new Governments or new Government institutions. We must start with the institutions that exist. We are there in response to an invitation offered by the Lebanese Government, and it is right that we moved in on that basis for the purpose that I have described.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: As United States policy is notable for its partisanship in the middle east generally—that is to understate it—and as the United States fleet has already heavily attacked one of the parties to the internal disagreement in the Lebanon, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it advisable to tell the President and his business cronies, who do not have a clue about these matters, to get out of the middle east altogether?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman takes a characteristically eccentric and unhelpful view of the basis of the American role in the area. The United States is in
36
the area because of its conclusion that its presence contributes to the prospect of a peaceful solution to the difficult problems there.
Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that unfortunately it may be a long time indeed before there is either a political or military solution in the Lebanon? That being so, would it not be wise to move our troops, if possible along with other troops there, to safer locations, as they are bound to be there for a long time?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my hon. Friend's point that, inevitably, risk is involved in the deployment of troops in these circumstances. That is why we wish to see a conclusion to the uncertainty as soon as possible. However, were the troops to be removed altogether, they would not contribute to the role that they have so far performed. As I have already said, it is right for those involved in the Lebanon to recognise the need to proceed with the utmost urgency towards a resolution of this problem.
Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be unwise for the British contingent to be seen to be taking sides in the internal and increasingly bloody politics of the Lebanon? Will he continue to resist calls for its removal while it is able to make a positive and helpful contribution towards bringing the parties together in the search for national reconciliation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is, of course, right to take account of the extent to which it can make a positive and helpful contribution. It is on that basis that the troops went, and remain, there. I emphasise that the British troops are taking no sides in this conflict. One reason underlining that fact is the role that they are at present playing at the invitation of all the parties concerned. That is a plain recognition of their independence.
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will my right hon. and learned Friend deny the suggestions that we are involved in the Lebanon because we are subservient to American foreign policy? Will he confirm that our presence there, rightly or wrongly, was a response to requests by the Lebanese Government, whom we wish to help, as a friendly but frail Government, to bring that country forward after years of turmoil and horror?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said and remind him that among the different contingents of troops at present playing a peacekeeping role in the Lebanon there are representatives of countries in Africa and outside western Europe, who plainly would not be there at the behest of the American Government. There are contingents in Lebanon trying to play their part in different ways in promoting the peace process, and it would be quite wrong to conclude that we are there in any sense as a lackey of the United States Government.
Mr. Stuart Bell: A family of constituents whose son is at present in Beirut have expressed great concern at the situation in Lebanon. I am sure that they will note that a senior representative is shortly to visit Beirut. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that there has already been an urgent review of security at the base and of the

37
accommodation of our contingent with a view to preventing the sort of kamikaze attack that was yesterday perpetrated in Beirut?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I well understand the hon. Gentleman expressing his concern on be half of the family of one of those serving in the present difficult situation in Beirut. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has been concerned with the question he raised. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence recently visited the Lebanon as did the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in recent weeks. As a result of all their assessments and the assessment now being undertaken by the officer commanding United Kingdom forces, the very questions raised by the hon. Gentleman have been considered and will be reconsidered in the light of the latest report.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: While a responsible Government will wish to re view the presence of British troops in the Lebanon on a day-to-day basis, would not this he the worst possible moment unilaterally to withdraw our contingent from the multinational force? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that beyond the complexities of the political theme in the Lebanon lies a real risk of conflict between the big powers and, therefore, any contribution which Britain can make towards helping the Lebanese Government to secure a peaceful settlement is warmly to be welcomed? Although he will look at the Lebanon on a day-to-day basis, will he also keep at the back of his mind the need for Europe to point the way to a wider settlement of the middle east dispute?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's last point. That question is not only in my mind but in the minds of the other Foreign Ministers of the Ten. I entirely agree that, even if it were under consideration, today, at a time when the forces of other countries have suffered such a severe blow, would be quite the wrong moment to consider unilateral withdrawal.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British presence in the multinational force was not debated in this House and that, unlike the United States Congress, we have not been asked to pronounce upon it? What is his view of the criticism of the presence of the United States in the Lebanon by such distinguished people as Dr. Kissinger and the fact that there is resistance to the United States entrenching its position in the Lebanon?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have no doubt that the opinions expressed inside and outside Congress are as diverse as those in this House. I understand that my opposite number, Secretary of State George Shultz, will in the next day or two engage in just such an exchange as this in Congress.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the Americans in the
38
nicest possible way that their policies in the middle east are likely to be more successful if they do not take one side in a cross-factional conflict, that President Gemayel was put in place by Members of Parliament elected some 12 years ago—before Lord Wilson's last Administration— and several civil wars ago, and that he has completely destroyed his credibility within the Lebanon by fighting alongside the Fascist forces of the Phalange, the people who perpetrated the massacres in Sabra and Chatila? Will he also remind the Americans that Syria is there, is likely to remain there and should be taken account of?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is right that we should all take account of the presence, interest and role of Syria and the Syrian Government, because they have legitimate security concerns of which we should all take account. However, the differences that exist within the Lebanon are in the last resort to be settled by the Lebanese themselves. Whatever may be said by my hon. Friend, we cannot create a constitutional framework other than that which exists for such differences to be solved. I have no doubt that the American and every other Government concerned try as best they may to reach an honest conclusion as to the objective road to follow. That is the purpose of us all.
Mr. David Young: I was a member of the recent delegation to Cyprus, and one soldier, recently arrived from the Lebanon, asked me "As a soldier my job is to serve where I am sent, but will you as a politician tell me what I am doing in the Lebanon anyway?". Are we putting 97 men there to follow the cause of peace or are they there as pawns in a fight which some hon. Members see as a battle between the West and the East? If we put men there, it is our duty to ensure that they are impartial and not in support of one regime or another.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course it is right that they should be seen to be present impartially. That is the case that I have made this afternoon, and that is widely accepted in the House. They are there to serve the cause of peace. Unfortunately in today's world such service requires soldiers from many countries to serve in some most unattractive and remarkable situations, but that is the purpose of their presence there.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Before these questions end, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman dissociate himself from President Reagan's comment that he intends to seek revenge? Revenge has dominated Lebanese politics since the inception of that country, and if that is the policy that the United States Administration intend to pursue there is little hope of peace in the Lebanon this week, next week or at any time in the future.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The United States has explained the purpose of its presence there—to further the cause of peace and to promote the prospect of an established, strong and independent Lebanon.

British Rail
4.40 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Government have listened carefully to the wide public debate on the Serpell report and in particular to the views of the Select Committee on Transport. What emerges strongly from that debate is that it is for the Government to give the railways a clear framework and objectives, and for the British Railways Board to direct and manage its business in the light of them. Accordingly, I have today sent to the chairman of the board, Mr. Reid, a statement of the objectives which the Government wish him to pursue. Copies are available in the Vote Office and I will arrange for it to be published in Hansard.
An efficient railway has a vital part to play in the transport system, but it must give its customers value for money. By giving customers the services they want at a reasonable cost, the railway can secure its own future, and the people who work in the industry can feel pride in their work. British Rail has already begun to introduce really significant improvements, to which I want to pay a warm tribute. The firm objectives I am now setting are designed to further that process.
The board's latest corporate plan is clearly going in the right direction and the objectives I have set Mr. Reid build upon it. In its 1983 plan, the board envisages a requirement for central Government grant of about £635 million—in 1983 prices—by 1988. I am setting the chairman the objective of achieving that target—a grant requirement of £635 million in 1983 prices—two years sooner.
The objectives I have set for the chairman make it plain that it is not our intention that the board should embark on a programme of major route closures. This puts paid to the scare stories about the network, about which we heard so much following the publication of the Serpell report.
This does not rule out the board proposing changes locally, where they make sense. It is for the chairman to consider new forms of guaranteed and subsidised substitute bus services, where appropriate on local transport and value for money grounds.
The freight, parcels and inter-city businesses can and should work to a commercial objective. The Government believe that rail freight has strong environmental advantages over road freight, so we want as much freight as possible to go by rail, within the financial target for the business, which is to achieve a 5 per cent. return by 1988. The scheme of section 8 grants for rail freight facilities will continue.
The board's plan envisages an increase in investment from present levels. I shall support worthwhile investment which relates directly to the financial and business objectives that we have set.
The railway is operating in a highly competitive market, so it is to the board's advantage to obtain rolling stock wherever possible by competitive tendering and to rationalise excess capacity within BREL as soon as possible. I have asked the chairman to complete by the middle of next year a review of the options for the future of BREL, including the options for privatisation. All the options will be examined on their merits.
40
Greater private sector finance and involvement can help to improve services for customers and keep down costs. I have therefore called on the chairman to continue to seek greater private sector participation in the development of the railway.
The statement of objectives confirms the Government's intention to privatise Sealink, and also calls for improvements in the railway's industrial relations machinery.
With these objectives, the way is clear for the board to manage the railway so that it gives the country the good quality, efficient service which we all seek.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State's statement and letter offer not a glimmer of hope or a scrap of encouragement to those who seek a decent service in British Rail, or to those who work in or manage British Rail. The statement makes no mention of investment money or investment objectives, and nothing is said about railway electrification, which has been shuttlecocked backwards and forwards between the Secretary of State's Department and British Rail. There can now be no possibility of a quick decision as, presumably, this statement will mean that all the sums will have to be redone. Rail investment was down to £269 million in 1982, when British Rail said that it required £500 million annually to prevent the crumbling edge of quality. Investment cannot be sustained because in recent years British Rail has been forced to cut its investment programme and to live within the harsh economic climate that the Government have created.
Earlier today, the Secretary of State announced that this year's public service obligation grant was to be £819 million, which is £40 million less than British Rail asked for in the corporate plan that it published in August this year. The Secretary of State's statement and letter speak of £635 million in 1986, which is £65 million less than the estimated 1988 requirement. Therefore, on British Rail claims alone, the Secretary of State is withdrawing from British Rail over £200 million of financial support in three years. More than that is being withdrawn when one balances this against the much reduced claims that the Government have forced on British Rail.
The withdrawal of this money can only be brought about by service cuts, line closures, fare rises and accelerated job losses, but the Secretary of State has the cheek to say that he wants British Rail to try to foster a better industrial relations climate. Some 30,000 rail jobs were lost between 1970 and 1979 and a further 42,500 will go between 1981 and 1985.
In his letter, the Secretary of State says that he wants substitute bus services guaranteed. We know that these guarantees did not last for long after the Beeching report. We need to ask the Secretary of State what he means by no "major route closures". Does he mean a 10 per cent. cut in the rail network, a 20 per cent. cut, a 30 per cent. cut or more?
In answer to the Serpell committee report, British Rail made it clear that it was opposed to the privatisation of BREL. It is clear that British Rail must have the full in-house capacity to provide its modern rolling stock. An in-house rail capacity provides a basis for exports that can greatly benefit us. Undoubtedly, further closures of this capacity within British Rail would be to the detriment of British Rail services.

41
The Secretary of State has not grasped the fact that, compared with other railway systems in Europe, British Rail operates on a much lower subsidy The Secretary of State would have been far better off if he had taken a little more time over his assessment than the five or six days that he has had since he has been in office. It is clear that the Secretary of State has not changed jobs but merely changed the office in which he works. He will have to do better that this if he is to live down his tag of "Lawson's office boy".
Paragraph 5 of the Serpell committee report said:
"our review has been concerned with the railway's finances, not transport policy."
That is why the report was hopelessly inadequate. The Secretary of State has made the same fundamental error, and that is why his statement and letter are so hopelessly inadequate. If this is what the Secretary of State has delivered to British Rail, to those who work in it and to those who are served by it in his five days of office, I hope that he does not last as long as his predecessor, who lasted five short months.
Mr. Ridley: On the contrary, this is a document of hope for those who travel on the railway and those who work in it. If the improvement in performance can be maintained there is a secure and commercial future for the railways which will be to the benefit of both groups. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is wrong in his rather grudging welcome to the statement.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of investment, but last year British Rail implemented only 75 per cent. of its investment programme. It is up to British Rail to suggest worthwhile investment proposals for the future. Its plans include significantly higher levels of investment and I shall be glad to support worthwhile projects related to the objectives that we have set the board for investment.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Level of grants. I should have thought that he would have been delighted to see the need for public money being reduced by efficiency and railway improvement, because he must not forget to add the passenger transport executive grants, which could amount to about £70 million a year, and which have to be added to the figures in the letter that I sent to the chairman. It is for the very reason that he mentioned in connection with substitute bus services that the word "guaranteed" is included in the objectives. Of course they have to be guaranteed if they are to replace a railway line, but I should have thought that he would agree with the Select Committee on Transport and also with the House, when it debated these matters in February, that this was a worthwhile way of seeking to improve transport facilities.
On the subject of BREL, the engineering workshops, tile hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a large in-house capacity was needed to help to secure exports as well as to refurbish British Rail. The hon. Gentleman must realise that if rolling stock is to be exported it has to be competitive. The chairman is asked to make sure that BREL becomes highly competitive so that it will win orders from both Rail and from overseas. Again, I should have thought that the Opposition shared that objective.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the subsidies that other railways receive. Rather than thinking that the bigger the subsidy that we can give British Rail the better, he should recognise that the smaller the subsidy that we give British Rail, because it is more efficient, the greater the national achievement would be.
Mr. Terence Higgins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which makes it clear that the scare stories put about, particularly by the Liberal party on the south coast during the general election, were false and the fears that they sought to stimulate in the light of the Serpell report were ill founded. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the Opposition Front Bench still will not take yes for an answer on that matter? Is it not true that further investment must depend on the removal also of restrictive trade practices in the railways, and that the experience we had with the massive investment on the St. Pancras line, which lay wasted for so long, must not be repeated?
Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I repeat that we envisage no major change in the size of the network. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary quoted the Labour party's manifesto on transport policy for the election, which clearly did not insist that every line should be maintained. Of course we must be flexible in these matters. I have said what our intention is for the network, and I hope that that lays to rest the scare stories that have been circulating. I entirely agree that productivity is the key to the future of the network. I congratulate the railways on what they have already done and I urge them to do more.
Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the Minister be a little more explicit on what he said about no major rail closures? Does he consider that the 70-mile stretch of railway from Settle to Carlisle is a major bit of railway? Will he give an assurance that, if he is asked by the British Railways Board to close that line, he will, in view of the outcry from all parts of the country, see that the proposal is blocked?
Mr. Ridley: If and when the British Rail proposal to withdraw passenger services on the Settle to Carlisle route comes to me, I shall consider it on its merits. In the meantime, I must not do or say anything that would or might appear to prejudge my position, because I have to take the eventual decision.
Sir David Price: Will my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members very much welcome his clear statement that he sees no need for any major reduction in the network? Secondly, on his important point about the key to the future of British Rail being improved productivity, with which certainly all Conservative Members agree, does he accept that to reduce the need for continuing subsidies it is important to get an increase in the capital infrastructure of the railways? One can see clearly in BREL that to reduce the need for maintenance we need new stock. Will my right hon. Friend therefore distinguish between current expenditure and capital investment?
Mr. Ridley: I repeat that it is not our intention that the board should embark on a programme of major route closures. I agree with my hon. Friend that investment is vital to the future efficiency of the railways. As I said, we shall look with favour upon proposals for investment, even if they show an expanding total in the future, provided that they are properly costed and are investments that will yield a reasonable rate of return.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: If that is the case, does the Secretary of State accept that an overwhelming case has already been made for such investment in rail electrification? Will he therefore stop

43
giving evasive answers such as those that were given by his colleague at Question Time today about electrification, particularly in connection with the east coast route? As it will help to improve the efficiency and performance of British Rail in the future, will he make it clear to the House and to British Rail that that is the direction that he wants to take?
Mr. Ridley: I have already been chided for coming to a decision within five days about this matter. I cannot reach a decision about the electrification of the east coast route in that short time. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are awaiting the inter-city strategy from British Rail. When it puts forward plans for inter-city business to achieve its expected rate of return, that will be the time to consider major investments of that nature, and we shall consider them in the light of whether they are proper commercial investments.
Mr. Derek Foster: In the light of the Minister's statement this afternoon, what glimmer of hope can he give the people of Shildon, where 2,500 jobs are to go in a town of only 14,000 people? Will not further privatisation of British Rail engineering works involve further closures of that nature, further job losses, and further destruction of rail communities? Will the Secretary of State answer that?
Mr. Ridley: I understand that the British Railways Board has already confirmed the closure of Shildon and two other works. It is not for me to say which works should or should not be closed. It is for me to set out the Government's objectives to the railways, and it is for the British Railways Board to run the railways and take the management decisions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that that relationship must be preserved if the railways are to have a real chance to improve their position in the future.
Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. Friend has told us what he wrote to the chairman, but is he aware that if I were the chairman I would write back to him and say: "Dear Minister, Thank you for your charming letter which, in elegant phrases such as 'value for money' and 'highly competitive market', does not tell me anything at all. Can you please tell me whether you will provide the funds to electrify the railway and to provide this country with the modern railway that we need?" The chairman would also ask: "Are you aware, Minister, 'that British Rail covers a higher percentage of its fares than almost any other railway in the world from its own revenue? Are you also aware, Minister, that I am constantly asked to produce my accounts for the railways, showing track costs, and so forth, while my competitors on the roads have all their costs paid under general taxation? Can you please give me answers to these questions, Minister?"
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend's letter to me was a little long and I should like to read it in Hansard to make sure that I pick up all the points that he made. What am I doing for the railways? I have offered to provide £819 million this year and £635 million in 1986. By any standards, those are sizeable sums, and within those sums will be ample funds for the investment programme which all hon. Members who have spoken so far have stressed and which
44
the Government accept as important. I think, too, that all hon. Gentlemen accept that investment should be directed towards improving the performance and quality of the railway, and not just be investment for investment's sake.
Mr. Harry Cowans: Is the Minister aware that he has just delivered a demoralising body blow not only to the people who work in the industry but to the customers? If one reads between the gobbledegook that has just come from the Dispatch Box, one sees that it really says: "For your efforts in the past"—on which the right hon. Gentleman congratulated the British Railways Board — "you have to accelerate that programme by two years." On the other hand, the statement says further on: "You shall not increase your fares unreasonably." No firm in the private sector could possibly operate in that way. Is not the Minister aware of what that would do? How can he possibly go on saying, as he does, time after time, that there will be no major closures, given the criteria that he has just laid down? Will he please desist from misleading the House by quoting only those parts of the Select Committee report which supports his case? If he will not deal with the report in its entirety, may we debate it in the House?
Mr. Ridley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, both the Serpell report and the British Railways Board's plan showed that major savings could be made partly through investment and partly through improved working practices. The Government have merely said that if those major savings can be made they should be made as quickly as possible, because the sooner they are made the sooner the railways will be modern and efficient. That is not a body blow to the railway industry but an encouragement to it to bring itself to a position in which it can secure its future by attracting customers. If the hon. Gentleman would see the matter in that light, he would realise what an opportunity this is for the railways to establish themselves, not so much at the taxpayers' expense, I hope, but to the benefit of the customers who should be paying the fares.
Mr. Matthew Parris: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the financial mess into which unlimited subsidy has led the German state railway system? May I wish him all strength in resisting pressure to go down that track?
Mr. Ridley: I need no encouragement to avoid that track. British railways might well begin to be among the most efficient in the world if they can meet the requirements and the objectives that I have set out. The greatest error of all is to fall into the trap of thinking that the more money one throws at the railways, the better the railways will be. I suspect the reverse to be the case.
Mr. Stephen Ross: We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speed with which he has reached his decision as to the future guidelines for the railways, but we wish that he had taken longer to consider the implications. We suspect that the information and advice given to him by the Department is anti-rail. I suggest that his contribution today has done nothing to improve the morale of the railways.
If the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is satisfied with the rolling stock in the south of England, I am certainly not, and I am sure that a great many people agree with me.

45
As to the future privatisation of Sealink, can the Secretary of State give a time scale for that? Does he intend British Rail to retain a substantial shareholding— below 50 per cent. — in a future company that will operate those services?
Mr. Ridley: With regard to rolling stock, I appreciate that there is a particular problem in the Isle of Wight, which has special requirements due to the gauge and track. We are not interfering with sound investment decisions by British Rail for the future. They will be enabled to go ahead. The Department is not anti-rail, and nor am I. I reinforce that by saying that the objectives have been discussed with the chairman of British Rail and I sincerely believe that he will find them helpful and will be able to live with them. Far from being anti-rail, I believe that the proposals will be welcomed by the railways.
The objectives require the chairman to have Sealink ready for privatisation as soon as possible, but I can tell the House neither when that will be nor the exact method of privatisation and eventual shareholding afterwards.
Mr. Rob Hayward: Does the Secretary of State not agree that the prime responsibility of the railway is to serve its customers who require a clean and reliable service at reasonable cost?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend could not have put it better. That is exactly what we should be looking to. Those who work on the railways should ensure that their service appeals to travellers so as to attract extra custom and thus ensure a flourishing railway.
Mr. Martin Flannery: The cuts in the railways are responsible for the great lack of staff to clean and maintain them. Are not the Government going headlong down the path of privatisation without any proof that the result will not be chaos on the railways which we shall later have to clear up? The railways were originally nationalised because of their inefficiency.
The Secretary of State asked where he would find the taxpayers' money to put into the railways. Has he considered that the throwing of taxpayers' money, as the saying now goes, has resulted in more than £3,000 million going to the farmers? I suggest that he takes some of that away from his pals and puts it into the railways as they urgently need it. According to his argument, the farmers will become more and more inefficient if more money is thrown at them, but they seem to be making millions for themselves while somehow maintaining a certain amount of efficiency. Will the Secretary of State explain that?
Mr. Ridley: There is a lot to explain.
Mr. Flannery: Is the right hon. Gentleman a farmer by any chance?
Mr. Ridley: Alas, I am not. There are no cuts in the statement. There is a reduction of subsidy to meet increased efficiency. I do not regard that as a cut. There are no grounds for believing that we can privatise the railways in the near future. That is not in the objectives that I have set for the chairman and I do not believe that it would be possible within that timescale, but it would clearly be most undesirable if the hon. Gentleman were ever allowed to clear up the mess in this or in any other area.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he wishes to discuss farming.
Mr. Tim Eggar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very warm welcome will be given to his statement, especially the emphasis on the introduction of private capital into all aspects of the railway's activities? Can he assure the House that higher priority will be given to the sale of redundant property, of which there is a great deal, especially in the inner cities?
Mr. Ridley: BRIL, the investment subsidiary of the railways, has already sold a great deal of property. The objectives expressly require the chairman to press on to ensure that the sale of surplus property is increased. That has already made a great difference to the funds available to the railways for investment.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his statement represents a move towards the introduction of full economic fares for commuters in the south-east?
Mr. Ridley: No, Sir.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Given my right hon. Friend's welcome remarks about investment, may we assume that if the British Railways Board meets the commercial criteria laid down by the Government for the electrification of the east coast line the Government will respond quickly by giving approval for that to go ahead?
Mr. Ridley: Yes, but there is one qualification. We wish to see the plan for the development of the Inter-city service as a whole rather than take one bit in advance. We want to see the inter-city services operating on a plan which will bring a return on capital. That is the background against which we shall judge each electrification application.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I welcome some of the right hon. Gentleman's comments if he really means them. He said that he would support local changes where they made sense and that he supported the movement of freight by rail. Is he aware that most of the north Yorkshire coalfield product travels by rail through the centre of Knottingley in my constituency? Is he further aware that in the near future the vast bulk of the product from the new Selby coalfield will travel the same way? Does he appreciate that at that point the town's transport system will collapse and the environmental conditions involved will make many residential areas uninhabitable? In view of that, and bearing in mind his comments today, will the Secretary of State support the provision of a rail by-pass for the southern part of Knottingley?
Mr. Ridley: I cannot be asked to do the chairman's job and make decisions on where lines should be. If the hon. Gentleman's question relates to the south Yorkshire passenger transport executive, he may be able to get help from that source. When management decisions are before the board I want to ensure that the Government's objectives are clearly set out.

Following is the statement of objectives:

R. B. Reid Esq. CBE

The Chairman

British Railways Board

Rail House

Euston Square

LONDON NW1 Dear Chairman

24 October 1983

This letter sets out the objectives the Government wishes you to pursue. It supplements the statutory and financial duties of the Board.
Your guiding objective should be to run an efficient railway, providing good value for money. Services to your customers should be reliable, attractive and punctual, at acceptable fares and charges; and the cost to the taxpayer should be reduced. That is the way to achieve a secure future for the railway, enable worthwhile investment to go ahead and give your employees satisfaction and pride in their work.
The Board's current Plan shows the requirement for PSO grant from central government falling to about £700m (in 1983 prices) in 1986 and to about £635m in 1988. The Government wants you to go faster than this so as to reduce the requirement for central government grant to £635m (in 1983 prices) in 1986. Your 1984 Plan should show the profile of expenditure and the measures required to achieve this.
It is not our intention that you should embark on a programme of major route closures. At the same time I should welcome your early views, following the endorsement of the case by the Select Committee on Transport, on the practicability of introducing some guaranteed and subsidised substitute bus services, where they would be appropriate on local transport and value for money grounds.
I shall want you to work closely with London Regional Transport, when it is set up, and with other public transport operators, to provide a better deal for travellers in and around London and to avoid wasteful duplication.
It is the Board's responsibility to determine fares. But improved efficiency must make a full contribution to keeping down fares. The railway must not use its market position to raise fares unreasonably.
The Board's 1983 Corporate Plan shows the Freight Business coming into profit by 1986. You should take the necessary action to ensure that it achieves a current cost operating profit of 5% in 1988. Within the financial targets set out above, I want you to win as much freight business from road as possible. The objective for the Parcels business should be to continue to earn a proper commercial return. I look forward to receiving the Board's review of the Inter-City business against its commercial target.
The Government wants you to secure improvements to the railways' present industrial relations machinery, which has hampered good communications and slowed down the necessary pace of change.
Sealink must be made ready for privatisation as soon as possible. The Government looks to you to obtain from the private sector more supply and support services, including rail and station catering. I shall welcome proposals from you for more private sector finance and participation in the development of stations and railway services. The Board should continue to pursue a vigorous policy of property development and disposal.
Rationalisation of British Rail Engineering Limited's excess capacity should be completed as soon as possible. You should complete your review by the middle of next year of the options for the future of BREL, including the options for privatisation. Railway rolling stock should be procured wherever possible by competitive tendering; and the railway equipment industry should continue to be allowed the opportunity to offer design solutions to meet BR's requirements.
Your investment programmes should relate directly to the financial and business objectives set out above. You will clearly wish to give proper priority to cost saving investment which gives an early return; and to carrying forward the improvements which the Board has introduced in management accounting and control.
I look forward to working with you and your Board to achieve the good quality, efficient railway services which are our common goal and to seeing these objectives reflected in your 1984 Plan.
Yours sincerely
Nicholas Ridley

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
David John Maclean, Esq., Penrith and The Border.

Rate Support Grant
5.11 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Secretary of State for the Environment's contempt for the House of Commons in announcing the rate support grant settlement four days before the resumption of Parliament, his contempt for the local authorities in failing to convene the consultative council on local government finance and, above all, his contempt for the ratepayers in imposing lower grant and higher penalties, which will force rates up to higher levels."
The matter is specific because the rate support grant settlement and accompanying penalties were published last Thursday. It is important because the rate support grant affects the finances, and therefore the services, of every local authority in the country. The matter should have urgent consideration so that right hon. and hon. Members can express their views on the Secretary of State's behaviour towards the House, towards local authorities and, most of all, towards ratepayers.
The House has a right to pass judgment on the Secretary of State's decision to publish the settlement four days before the House reconvened instead of making a statement here today, as other Ministers have done. This follows the Secretary of State's contempt for the House when he published his rates White Paper and his local authority spending ceilings on the Monday after we went into recess. We are talking of a Minister who deliberately times difficult announcements in order to dodge and cheat Parliament.
The House has a right to pass judgment on the Secretary of State's distortion of section 1(3) of the Local Government Act 1974, which requires the Secretary of State to consult local authorities on the rate support grant settlement.
The Department of the Environment's announcement last Thursday began:
"Mr. Patrick Jenkin, the Secretary of State for the Environment, today consulted local government on the Government's proposals for English local authorities' 1984–85 current expenditure".
That statement was the consultation. It is a farce. No meeting took place; no consultation took place. Local authorities read about the consultation in the newspapers. This is a scandalous abuse of a statute passed by Parliament.
The House has a right to pass judgment on the fiddling of the figures in the announcement and on the pretence that the grant will rise by £90 million, when it is being cut by £600 million. The House has a right to pass judgment on the pretence that expenditure is being allowed to rise when it, too, is being cut. Rates will be pushed up to record levels, services will be cut and jobs will go.
All those matters are specific and urgent. The House has a right to hold this overweening Minister to account and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule accordingly.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the rate support grant settlement 1984–85."

49
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the only decision I have to make is whether this matter should have precedence over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Nuclear Waste Disposal
5.14 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need to reassure the people of Stockton, North, who are in turmoil over the proposal to dispose of intermediate-level nuclear waste in the disused anhydrite mines at Billingham."
I consider the matter to be specific because this is the first definitive proposal to dispose of intermediate-level radioactive waste in a permanent manner at a specific site.
The matter is important because Billingham is densely populated and has a high concentration of industry which produces a wide range of volatile commodities. Many of the commodities are stored cheek by jowl in subterranean cavities in close proximity to the proposed site. The area has a high community commitment of long standing. The inside of the mine is a corrosive environment.
The matter is urgent because, after nine months of speculation, which has caused acute anxiety and concern, the population have been roused to the point of turmoil by the cavalier manner in which Nirex has repeatedly changed its statements and the covert way in which it has conducted its affairs.
In the genuine pursuit of my constituents' peace of mind and of good public order and discipline I urge the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, in order to allay the understandable fears of the people of Stockton, North specifically, and of Cleveland in general.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need to reassure the people of Stockton, North, who are in turmoil over the proposal to dispose of intermediate-level nuclear waste in the disused anhydrite mines at Billingham."
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Metal Box Co. Ltd.
5.16 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement by the Metal Box Co. Ltd. that it intends to make 355 people redundant at five different factories throughout the United Kingdom, including 195 at its Aintree factory on Merseyside, which represents the sacking of one-quarter of the Metal Box, Merseyside work force."
The matter is, indeed, urgent. First, it is urgent in the light of the massive unemployment level on Merseyside. The Metal Box redundancies came on top of the announcement on the same day by Seagrams that it intends to close its operations on Merseyside with the loss of another 220 jobs.
Since the general election, Merseyside has been blitzed by closures and redundancies, one after the other— United Biscuits 2,000 jobs; Purley Oil 128; Binns Ltd. 200; Cadbury Schweppes 315; Perry Brous 140; Nabisco 970; Barclays 127; the National Health Service 560; and now Seagrams and Metal Box are following.
The urgency of the position cannot be exaggerated because Merseyside is being turned into an industrial desert. An urgent debate on that specific issue is necessary because of the reasons provided by the Metal Box management for the redundancies. Its statement makes the issue urgent not only for Merseyside but for the whole nation. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the recession is nearly over and that the economy is on the upturn. The Metal Box management explained that the redundancies were due mainly to the generally depressed home and export markets. Yet Metal Box is the sort of company that should be benefiting from any upturn in the economy. But it is not.
It is urgent that we debate the issue because what is happening to Merseyside today will be the fate of the nation tomorrow if urgent action to restore the nation's economy is not taken now.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the announcement by the Metal Box Co. Ltd. that it intends to make 355 people redundant at five different factories throughout the United Kingdom, including 195 at its Aintree factory on Merseyside".
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day

  Prevention of Terrorism Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary, I must tell the House that I have selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
  5.23 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  When, last March, my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw asked the House to renew the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, he said that the Government intended to introduce a Bill to replace the Act. Subject to the consultations that were then in progress, it was intended that the Bill would implement the changes recommended by Lord Jellicoe, whose review of the operation of the 1976 Act was published in February.
  The Bill we are debating today incorporates the changes recommended by Lord Jellicoe. They are designed to ensure that the law achieves what Lord Jellicoe saw as the proper balance between the safety of the public and the rights of the individual.
  The first Act was passed as an emergency measure in November 1974 in response to an intensive campaign by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland and on the mainland. In the first 20 days of that November there had been 11 attacks on the mainland, killing four people and injuring 35, and on the night of the 21st explosions in two Birmingham pubs killed 21 and injured another 183 people. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill was introduced on 27 November, passed through all its stages in one day, and came into force on 29 November. It was renewed six months later, and in 1975 a new Bill was introduced to give Parliament the opportunity to debate the provisions in more detail than had been possible in 1974. That Bill became the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, which will be repealed by the Bill we are debating today.
  Both the previous Acts of 1974 and 1976 have been subject to renewal by Parliament at regular intervals— six months and one year respectively. That has served to remind us all that the powers that it bestows on the Secretary of State and the police are exceptional, not to be taken for granted, and to be exercised only with the greatest care and consideration. As the fourth Home Secretary to be called on to exercise those powers, I can acknowledge readily that, in other circumstances, I would regard them as wholly unacceptable. But, like my predecessors — and like both Houses of Parliament, which have renewed them on nine occasions — I am certain that the powers form an essential part of our armoury in the fight against terrorism.
  The threat from terrorism is the most direct challenge facing society today. Fortunately, there has not been an Irish terrorist incident on the mainland since the London park bombings last year. But that is not because the terrorists have lost their will. That is, sadly, shown clearly by events in Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA and

  53
  INLA are constantly working towards and planning equally bloody attacks in Great Britain. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated work of the police who follow up the most tenuous leads and piece together evidence. They provide a bulwark against further outbreaks of senseless violence. The day-to-day work involved is hard, unremitting and sometimes dangerous, and its successes must often go unknown and unrecognised by the public. But we must be all the more grateful to those who do this work and take the risks on our behalf.
  The Bill gives the Secretary of State power to proscribe organisations concerned in Northern Irish terrorism, and creates a range of offences connected with such organisations. It enables him to exclude persons from the United Kingdom, from Great Britain or from Northern Ireland if it seems to him expedient to do so to prevent acts of terrorism. Part 3 makes it an offence to contribute or solicit support for acts of terrorism, and to withhold information about such acts. The Bill also gives the police the power to arrest suspected terrorists without a warrant and to detain them for a limited period, which may be extended with the authority of the Secretary of State.
  I do not propose to deal in detail with all the provisions, but will focus on the major powers in the Bill, and above all on the changes that it makes to the provisions of the 1976 Act. The first of those changes related to the powers of arrest and detention. In giving the police those powers, the 1976 Act stated explicitly in every section, except those relating to arrest and detention and to the port powers, that the acts of terrorism referred to are acts of terrorism concerned with Northern Irish affairs. The intention was to provide a power to detain a person who was suspected of being a terrorist, even though it was not known what cause he supported. But it was nevertheless made clear during the passage of the 1976 Act that that section, like the Act as a whole, would be used to combat Northern Irish terrorism and not, knowingly, against other terrorist groups. That undertaking has been honoured.
  But, as well as the threat from Irish terrorism, there is a newer danger facing us today—from members of international terrorist groups, often with middle east connections, who have in recent years operated increasingly in the capitals of Western Europe. We have had our share of this violence. I need only remind hon. Members of the shooting of the Israeli ambassador here in London last summer—an assassination attempt for which those responsible are now serving long sentences. We fully recognise the seriousness of the threat to public safety posed by international terrorism. And so we have accepted Lord Jellicoe's recommendation that the power of arrest and detention, which was introduced to counter the threat posed by Irish terrorists, should be applied also to international terrorists.
  We have also accepted Lord Jellicoe's view that those powers should not cover groups concerned in what he defined as "domestic terrorism"—that is, terrorisim directed at influencing the internal affairs of the United Kingdom with the exception of Northern Ireland. Clause 12 has been drafted in such a way as to exclude the activities of, for example, Welsh and Scottish extremist groups. To date, mercifully no "domestic" group has been seen as posing a threat to public safety which is at all comparable to that posed by Irish or international groups. Should the picture change, the Government would, of course, be ready to consider asking Parliament to extend those powers as necessary.
  54
  It is only the powers of arrest and detention which we propose should be extended to international terrorists. This is because powers are needed only for purposes which cannot be fulfilled in any other way. For the most part the international terrorists at whom the extension in clause 12 is directed will be foreign nationals. The powers in the immigration legislation will provide adequate means of keeping them out of the United Kingdom without the need to resort to the exclusion powers in this Bill. The proscription arrangements, too, would not be relevant to an organisation which does not recruit, to a significant level, in the United Kingdom.
  I must make it quite clear that the Government are determined to pursue a policy of close co-operation with other countries to stamp out international terrorism. Our police and security forces work closely together. A notable example of that was the interception at Le Havre of a large consignment of weapons, bound for the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that their ultimate destination was the armouries of the Provisional IRA. The success of the operation was the result of co-operation between the authorities in a number of countries.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Having quoted that example of the way in which arms were detected, will the Home Secretary illustrate to the House how the existing legislation had, or the proposed legislation will have, any impact on that policing?
  Mr. Brittan: I gave it as an illustration not of the impact of this Bill, which has not yet come into effect, but rather of the international co-operation which is a crucial part of the battle against terrorism. I hope that the House will allow me the indulgence of giving that illustration, as an illustration of that point and of that point only.
  Several of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations were designed to improve the exclusion order system. Under the present arrangements there is no time limit on such orders. Although they may be reviewed after three years, they have an indefinite life. Lord Jellicoe recommended that orders should have a life of three years, after which they would lapse.
  In making this recommendation, Lord Jellicoe said that he was not implying any criticism of the three-year review procedure. He felt that something more was needed— that the Secretary of State should need to justify the continuance of the order, rather than expecting the excluded person to provide grounds for its revocation. It would be open to the Secretary of State to make a new order against someone who was the subject of an earlier, expired order. The Government have accepted that recommendation.
  The 1976 Act lays down a number of conditions which may exempt a British citizen from the exclusion order procedure. Under sections 4 and 5 of the Act a British citizen may not be excluded from a part of the United Kingdom— either Northern. Ireland or Great Britain—in which he has been ordinarily resident for 20 years. Lord Jellicoe recommended that this qualifying period should be reduced to three years. We have accepted that change, which is designed to ensure that the exercise of the power to exclude does not involve uprooting people from areas where they have been settled for many years, resulting in bitterness, the break-up of families and increased alienation from society.
  A further change recommended by Lord Jellicoe and incorporated in the Bill is designed to encourage more

  55
  excluded persons to make use of the system under which they may make representations against exclusion. Under the present system an excluded person may make representations within 96 hours of being served with the exclusion order and may include in them a request for an interview with one of the advisers appointed by the Secretary of State, to whom all such cases are referred. But an interview can be granted only if the subject has not yet been removed from that area from which he is excluded. That means that, in practice, a person who makes representations must remain in custody until an interview can be arranged, if he has requested one, and subsequently until the Secretary of State has considered his representations and the adviser's reports and has reached a decision in the case.
  Lord Jellicoe suggested that the combined effect of the 96-hour rule and the fact that there is no entitlement to an interview after removal created a disincentive to make representations—a view supported by the fact that only 44 people have done so since 1974 out of nearly 300. He therefore recommended that there should be an absolute right, within the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, to an interview with an adviser, and that the period within which representations may be made should be extended to seven days. In accepting these recommendations we have introduced a further extension which is designed to reduce the time spent in custody by encouraging people to agree to be removed from the area from which they are excluded. Accordingly, for those who do agree to this, the Bill provides for the deadline for making representations to be further extended to 14 days.
  Now that I have explained the changes to the 1976 Act, I shall deal briefly with each of the present Bill's parts.
  I begin by drawing attention to clause 17. It affects the whole character of the Bill by providing that its life shall be limited to five years from the date of the Royal Assent, and that it shall, like the 1976 Act, be subject to annual renewal. The introduction of a limited life reflects the view of Lord Jellicoe, which we share, that
  "special powers require exceptional safeguards, and it must ultimately be for Parliament, which granted these powers, to satisfy itself that both powers and safeguards are well used and effective".
  The introduction of a limited life for these measures will ensure that the need for the powers and their extent will be fully considered in detail and de novo before the fifth anniversary of Royal Assent.
  Mr. David Alton: The Home Secretary has been talking about the effectiveness of this legislation. Will he confirm that more than 5,000 completely innocent people, whose only crime was to be Irish, have been arrested under this legislation and subsequently released? Does he not accept that that has been a running sore among many ordinary Irish people and that the legislation has not been effective with them? What code of conduct is contained in the legislation to ensure that people are not manhandled, strip-searched or held in detention for unnecessarily long periods?
  Mr. Brittan: I do not for one single moment accept that the numbers to which the hon. Gentleman refers prove that the legislation has not been effective. The use of the powers of detention under the legislation has acted, first, as a deterrent to persons other than the people who have
  56
  been detained and, secondly, it has in the course of the detention of those concerned enabled some to be excluded and charged on the basis of information obtained and, in the case of many others, enabled information to be obtained that was of direct value in the battle against terrorism, even though it did not lead to action against the people concerned.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Home Secretary make this point absolutely clear as it is crucial to many of us? Is he saying that it is right in a free society to detain innocent people without charge for the purpose of obtaining information from them?
  Mr. Brittan: It has been made clear not by me but by the courts that that is a legitimate and necessary use of the power. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that we are discussing a severely limited period of detention, not on the basis of a completely arbitrary exercise of the power, but on the basis of the exercise of the power by the police for 48 hours. For any extension beyond that there is a requirement that the Secretary of State, who is answerable to the House, should be satisfied that the persons concerned have been involved in or are likely to be involved in acts of terrorism. Although I accept that, were the position with regard to terrorism other than what it is it would be intensely undesirable for these powers to exist or be used, I think that in the context in which we live the existence of the power, which has been on the statute book and supported by Governments of both political parties for a number of years, is sadly justified.
  Of the Bill's five parts, parts I and III are substantially the same as the equivalent provisions of the 1976 Act: part II relates to exclusion, and part IV, which embodies the powers of arrest and detention, includes the changes that I have already described. Part V includes the change in the duration of the legislation.
  Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to proscribe in Great Britain organisations which appear to him to be concerned in terrorism occurring in the United Kindgom and connected with Northern Irish affairs. The organisations proscribed are named in schedule 1. Clause 1 also makes it an offence to belong to, to invite or provide financial support for, or to arrange a meeting of, a proscribed organisation.
  Clause 2 makes it an offence to wear any item of dress or carry or display any article which suggests membership of or support for a proscribed organisation. Neither clause applies to Northern Ireland, where the Secretary of State has separate powers of proscription.
  Part II of the Bill relates to the making of exclusion orders. Clause 3 says that the Secretary of State may exercise the power to make exclusion orders
  "in such a way as appears to him expedient to prevent acts of terrorism"
  related to Northern Irish affairs. It enables him to revoke an exclusion order at any time and imposes on all orders a time limit of three years. Under the transitional arrangements in clause 18, exclusion orders still in force on the date of Royal Assent will expire three years from that date, unless they are revoked earlier. This will enable all the 280 or so orders now existing to be reviewed during that three-year period so that decisions on whether they should be revoked or remade may be taken.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make one thing clear? At the

  57
  end of a three-year period, when an exclusion order under the Bill ceases to have effect, it will, I trust, be open to the police to apply for an extension of that order if they believe it to be justified.
  Mr. Brittan: It would be a fresh order, but they would be able to make such an application.
  Clauses 4, 5 and 6 relate to the three different types of exclusion order. In each case, before making an order, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the person in question is, or has been, concerned is the Commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism related to Northern Irish affairs or intends to became so concerned.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I think that at an earlier stage in the Home Secretary's speech he indicated that where terrorism other than that connected with Northern Ireland was in question the effect of exclusion orders from the United Kingdom could be produced under the immigration law.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned clause 6, may I direct his attention to subsection (2), which provides that an exclusion order may prohibit a person from being in the United Kingdom. Are not there circumstances in which a person is in the United Kingdom and the immigration law would not permit that person, at any rate as promptly as desirable, to be excluded from the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Brittan: I do not think that that would be the case in the circumstances that I have described, but I should like to look further at the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that the immigration powers would be sufficient to cover such a case in the circumstances that I have in mind.
  Clause 6 is for use against persons who are not British citizens and permits the exclusion of such a person from the United Kingdom.
  Clauses 4, 5 and 6 contain a variety of safeguards designed to prevent undue hardship arising from an exclusion order. In all cases, the Secretary of State is required to have regard to whether a person's connection with a country or territory other than the one from which he may be excluded is such as to make exclusion appropriate. For exclusion orders against British citizens, there are two further safeguards. They may not be excluded from both Great Britain and Northern Ireland or from a part of the United Kingdom in which they have been ordinarily resident for three years. As I said, that is a change.
  Clause 7 gives excluded persons the right to make representations against their exclusion, and requires the Secretary of State to refer these representations to an independent adviser nominated by him. I have described the changes in those arrangements.
  Clauses 8 and 9 are essentially the same as the equivalent sections of the 1976 Act. Clause 8 provides that the Secretary of State may have an excluded person removed if he consents, if he has made representations which have not been accepted, or if he had not made representations within the period specified.
  Part III relates to miscellaneous offences. Under clause 10, it is an offence to make or solicit any contributions, whether financial or otherwise, in the knowledge that they will be used for the Commission, instigation or preparation of acts of terrorism related to Northern Irish affairs. Such money is liable to be forfeited following a conviction.
  58
  Clause 11 makes it an offence to withhold from the police and, in Northern Ireland, from the security forces any information that might assist in preventing acts of terrorism or in securing the apprehension, arrest or conviction of any person for a terrorist-related offence.
  Part IV relates to arrest and detention and embodies the major change that I described earlier—the extension of the police powers to international terrorists. Clause 12 gives the police the power to arrest without warrant a person whom they have reasonable grounds for suspecting of involvement in the Commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism related to Northern Irish or international affairs, of being the subject of an exclusion order, or of having committed an offence under clauses 1, 9 or 10. The major change here from the 1976 arrangements is the explicit inclusion of international terrorism, but a further change recommended by Lord Jellicoe is also included—the removal from the list of "arrestable" offences of the one now to be found in clause 11, which makes it an offence to withhold information about terrorist matters.
  A person arrested under clause 12 may be detained for up to 48 hours and, with the authority of the Secretary of State, for up to a further five days. Under the 1976 Act, the Secretary of State could agree to only one extension which could be for any period up to five days. This Bill incorporates a change which will allow the Secretary of State to agree to more than one extension. For example, he might authorise a three-day extension, after which a new application for no more than two further days would be necessary. As with the existing arrangements, the total period of detention will not be permitted to exceed seven days. I hope that by use of this provision it may be possible to ensure that each arrested person spends the minimum possible time in custody.
  Two related recommendations made by Lord Jellicoe have already been implemented. A follow-up report is prepared for each extension so that we can consider whether the purpose for which it was granted has been achieved, and thus both monitor individual cases and gain a general impression of how useful this power is. Also, unless circumstances make it impossible, every application for an extension is considered by me personally. If that is not possible, one of my ministerial colleagues takes the decision.
  A further group of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations was designed to ensure that people detained under this legislation have the same rights as any other detainees. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which I shall be introducing later this week, will give effect to those recommendations by providing for access to legal advice and for the notification of a relative or friend of a detainee's whereabouts.
  I have implemented two more of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations—numbers 33 and 38—by asking Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to carry out a study of the police work at ports. Lord Jellicoe noted considerable variation between ports in the way in which controls were operated, and identified some deficiencies in the physical accommodation provided in connection with the controls. The study will also cover the recommendation that all passengers on commercial flights and sailings between Great Britain and the island of Ireland should complete landing and embarkation cards.
  Clause 13 and schedule 3 empower the Secretary of State to make, by statutory instrument, an order which

  59
  enables security checks to be made at all ports. We envisage that the order, which will be laid before the House as soon as possible after this Bill receives Royal Assent, will be similar to the one now in operation, but it will incorporate a few changes to reflect recommendations made by Lord Jellicoe.
  Each debate on the prevention of terrorism legislation, throughout the nine years of its life, has focused on the need for a balance to be struck between civil liberties and public safety. Introducing the 1974 Act on its Second Reading, the then Home Secretary, now the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), said:
  "It cannot be without reluctance that we contemplate powers of the kind proposed in the Bill, involving as they must some encroachment—limited but real—on the liberties of individual citizens. Few things would provide a more gratifying victory to the terrorists than for this country to undermine its traditional freedoms in the very process of countering the enemies of those freedoms. This we must keep in mind not only today but in the future as we persevere in what may not be a short struggle to eradicate terrorism from this country."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 634.]
  Those words are as true today as they were then, and the end of the terrorist menace is still not in sight.
  In March 1977, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), introducing the debate on the renewal of the 1976 Act, said:
  "It is right that the balance between civil rights and the need for the protection of our citizens should be weighed up and discussed. There is a balance to be struck, and my judgment is that the continuance of the Act is a necessity."— [Official Report, 9 March 1977; Vol. 927, c. 1475.]
  In recent renewal debates, the Labour party has moved appreciably from this position, although it was not until this year that the Opposition decided to vote against renewal.
  We have been given notice of the terms of a reasoned amendment which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) intends to move. Apparently, it will make clear that the basis of the Opposition's rejection of the Bill is that Lord Jellicoe found that there can be no clear proof of the effectiveness of such measures and that some people in Northern Ireland who are opposed to terrorism believe that the Bill will foster support for terrorists.
  It is understandable that the Opposition should seek to look to Lord Jellicoe for support for their stance, but I am afraid that I have concluded that the use of this selective quotation implied in the reasoned amendment is not a fair one. There can be no clear proof—there is no question of that—and the Opposition have known perfectly well since 1974 that that was the case, although all those years they supported special measures.
  The need for a preventive measure cannot, by definition, be demonstrated in that sort of way, and Lord Jellicoe was bound to say that. But if the Opposition quote Lord Jellicoe they should quote the conclusion that he reached in his review. It was that after nine months of intensive inquiry, completed only a few months ago, he believed that special legislation effectively reduced terrorism and that it should be continued for as long as a substantial terrorist threat remained.
  When it comes to the extended detention power just mentioned, Lord Jellicoe concluded:
  "In the light of my inquiries and of the evidence submitted to me, I have therefore come to the firm conclusion that if the
  60
  power of extended detention were abolished, the police both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland would be seriously handicapped in dealing with terrorists."
  He concluded that the renewal of legislation was justified and made recommendations, which we are implementing in the Bill, for changes in it taking account of the need to preserve that delicate balance between individual liberties and the protection of the public, which we all have at heart.
  I believe that we must strike at that difficult balance. We must provide the necessary powers, provide proper safeguards and ensure that the powers are used fairly. The Bill seeks to strike just such a balance.
  I believe that there are many others in the House, not just my right hon. and hon. Friends, who will share my regret that the Opposition once again are departing from the position that they followed so wisely for nine years in the national interest. The previous legislation has been a real asset in the battle against terrorism. The Bill is similar in its essential features, but it incorporates important and useful improvements largely in a liberalising direction. It is important that the House should send the Bill into Standing Committee by a large majority. I invite it to do so.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which includes the power of arbitrary arrest and detention and the exclusion of British Citizens from parts of the United Kingdom, which is based on a Review that concedes that there can be no clear proof of the effectiveness of such measures, and which, in the opinion of some of Northern Ireland's most distinguished opponents of terrorism, will give nothing but support to the terrorists in Northern Ireland."
  In short, I oppose the Bill for reasons of both principle and practice. It seems to me to be wrong in principle because it proposes wholly unacceptable erosions of our civil liberties. It seems to me to be wrong in practice because, far from destroying or even disabling terrorism, it will have the effect of antagonising and alienating law-abiding British citizens.
  The objections in principle and the objections in practice cannot be separated. Thanks to the Bill, Irishmen who hate and despise the IRA will be open to persuasion that this Parliament speaks eloquently of liberty from time to time but votes to abandon our cherished liberties when it is urged to do so by the Government.
  I know that those of us who vote for the amendment but have voted for the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its orders in the past are required to reconcile those two particulars, and I propose to essay that task immediately. I do not think that performing that duty poses any great intellectual problem.
  The origins of the prevention of terrorism powers are not in dispute. The Act which the Bill replaces is the child of what came to be called the Birmingham pub bombings of 1975. I recall that day very well. Six of my constituents were murdered. As a result of those murders — 21 murders in all—the maimings and the damage that was done on that night, the House and the whole country were in an emotional turmoil.
  The draconian measures then advanced were accepted for a variety of reasons, all of which I supported and defended at the time and all of which seemed right and perhaps were right at the time. They ranged from the need

  61
  to take immediate powers to frustrate an imminent and widespread terrorist assault, which some people feared was a matter of days away, to the necessity of protecting the law-abiding majority of Irish citizens living here by demonstrating that the tiny minority of terrorists who lived amongst them would be weeded out and treated with no mercy.
  In the eight years since the decision was taken the reasons advanced for renewing the prevention of terrorism powers have changed constantly. Last year's justification was that a few terrorists were still caught and that a great deal of intelligence about terrorists was still obtained.
  I say at once, because of what the Secretary of State said in reply to my intervention, that I find the idea of imprisoning innocent men and women so that they may provide information for the police is a power that is inconsistent with the operation of a free society. It is no good the Secretary of State saying to the House that such powers have been endorsed by the courts. They have been endorsed by the courts because the House has passed laws which make it possible for the police to behave in that way. That is the most circuitous argument that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could possibly use. But I say what I tried to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman during his speech. The idea that innocent men and women may be held in custody for up to seven days simply to obtain information from them seems to me to be a denial of their liberties and a negation of the freedom that we ought to protect.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) argues as he has consistently throughout our debates on this matter. May I put to him a question that I think that it is important for him to answer? There are two conceptions of civil liberties. One is the right of someone freely to enter the country, which a cherished civil liberty, if anyone has the ability to do so. The other civil liberty is the right of an individual to go about his business free from molestation, the bomber and the murderer. That is the distinction that the right hon. Gentleman has to draw in striking the balance and defining what he regards as civil liberties.
  Mr. Hattersley: There is a little intellectual confusion in the hon. Gentleman's terms, but I understand his point. He will recall that I said at the beginning of my speech —and I promise to return to it in a moment—that one of my objections to the Bill was that it did not fulfil the purpose which its proponents claimed. Far from beating the IRA, which I wish to do with as much fervour as the hon. Gentleman, in many ways it helps and comforts the IRA. I propose to turn to that in a moment.
  I was trying to deal with the changing nature of the justifications for the prevention of terrorism powers. Once it was because of an imminent assault by terrorists and the need to protect the Irish population. Then it became the need to gather intelligence and to catch a few terrorists.
  Mr. Brittan: I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent anything that I have said. If I have not made myself sufficiently clear, I would welcome a chance to clarify my views. I did not say that the purpose of the power was to obtain information. As the right hon. Gentleman will see from clause 12:
  "A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting"
  62
  that he has been concerned in acts of terrorism or for anticipating that he may be concerned in them. The Secretary of State is then faced with the question whether to impose an exclusion order or bring a prosecution. What I have said is that even if, on evidential grounds or otherwise, it is not possible in those cases to bring a prosecution before the courts or even to impose an exclusion order, the fact that information of value may be obtained means that the exercise of the power has not been pointless even though the purpose achieved has not been the purpose enshrined in the statute.
  Mr. Hattersley: I did not accuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman of regarding that as the sole purpose or virtue of the measure, although I think the records show that one of his predecessors said so. I was about to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has produced a new justification, which is, in part, the result of the Jellicoe report. That justification is the need to make sure that London, which is alleged to be a centre of international terrorism, is able to act against terrorism of all sorts.
  That justification for what the Home Secretary is proposing is wholly bogus. We have coped during the past 10 years with the circumstances that the Jellicoe report describes, and I do not believe that, were it not for the Irish dimension, the idea of international terrorism would be brought forward as a justification for these powers.
  The arguments for the powers have shifted from year to year. The previous Home Secretary, now Lord Whitelaw, had two arguments. He argued that the decline of terrorism proved that the Act was working and must be retained. He also argued that the fact that terrorism was not declining proved that we needed the Act and must retain it. The arguments have always altered in accordance with the intellectual taste of the Minister, but one thing has been repeated time after time. One Home Secretary after another has either expressed the pious hope or made the confident assertion that the powers would not last for much longer. On every occasion, however, we are asked to extend them for a year, five years or an indefinite period. We are moving further and further away from the permanent abandonment of the rules, which would characterise a free society. Arbitrary arrest and arbitrary imprisonment are becoming more and more acceptable as a permanent part of our lives. For that reason, if for no other, a vote against the Second Reading of the Bill is justified.
  Mr. Brittan: Although I was not dealing with these matters at the time, I understand it was only earlier this year that the Opposition began to vote against these provisions. What happened between 1982 and 1983 to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that a provision which, broadly speaking, he had been prepared to accept had become unacceptable?
  Mr. Hattersley: Two things happened. First, I repeat that it is the permanence of the powers, by definition, that makes them more unacceptable. Secondly, the Government refuse to hold an inquiry into the necessity for the powers. The Governrnent have talked —the Home Secretary has talked today—as if Lord Jellicoe inquired into the necessity for the prevention of terrorism powers. In fact, Lord Jellicoe was specifically prevented from doing so by his terms of reference, which required him to

  63
  examine the powers on the assumption that they were necessary. That is the second point which makes us question the Government's judgment.
  On 7 March, against my advice—I was in the No Lobby—the House voted to renew the legislation that will be replaced by this Bill. I said then that to arrest and imprison an innocent man or woman without warrant, and to hold that man or woman in custody without charge, was not only wrong in itself but represented the poising of the Government and the country at the top of a disastrously slippery slope. Once we considered the possibility of denying traditional liberties year after year, we could not know how far we would travel along that path. It is no coincidence that on 7 March the Government proposed that Irishmen—let us not be mealy-mouthed; we are talking about Irishmen—could be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned and banished to a specific part of the United Kingdom. On 3 June the Home Secretary proposed that Irishmen—he had Irishmen specifically in mind—could be hanged as though convicted, even though no jury had found them guilty of murder.
  Once we are prepared to tolerate some erosion of civil liberties, there is no knowing what will follow. If we abandon the principle of rigid adherence to the rule of law and the protection of individual liberty, we cannot be sure what next step may appear acceptable because of our previous conduct.
  Every Home Secretary who has advocated the powers under discussion has conceded that they infinge our traditional liberties. In 1981, the then Home Secretary said
  "they infringe our shared concept of civil liberties."—[Official Report, 18 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 341.]
  In 1982, he was equally precise. He said:
  "The Prevention of Terrorism Act makes a considerable inroad into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud".— [Official Report, 15 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 151.]
  This year he was just as frank, describing the powers as making
  "sad inroads into our cherished traditions of civil liberties."— [Official Report, 7 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 568.]
  However, both the previous and present Home Secretary have always managed to reconcile themselves to these unhappy necessities by phrases such as the following, used by the then Home Secretary in March this year:
  "we must continue to use every practical and useful tool in our hand to frustrate tenon"— [Official Report, 7 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 567.]
  The Home Secretary concluded that the Act is a vital instrument to the end of frustrating terrorism.
  Today, his successor has said very much the same thing. He has said that in other circumstances we would regard these powers as unacceptable, but that they are necessary if terrorism is to be beaten. He says that it is necessary to take powers under part I of the Bill to proscribe organisations that promote and encourage violence. If it is any consolation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I can tell him that that is the one part of the Bill with which I am in sympathy. I can see no reason why we should tolerate collections on behalf of, and demonstrations in support of, men and women who advocate murder as an instrument of political policy.
  The Government have, however, been remarkably selective in their choice of proscribed organisations. I would have more faith in the Government's objectivity on those matters if more organisations, rather than fewer,
  64
  were proscribed. However, I do not argue this evening about the advisability or propriety of part I of the Bill. It is in reading part II that I begin to feel that the Government are wrong in both principle and practice. Part II proposes internal banishment — a penalty unknown in England between Tudor times and 1976. That penalty has always seemed to me to be deeply offensive to the citizens of Northern Ireland — the Province which becomes the receptacle for most of the excluded persons. I welcome the changes from previous procedure proposed in the Bill. I welcome the decision to make it impossible to exclude a person from an area in which he or she has lived for years. I welcome the limited life of the exclusion order. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is no longer with us. I hope that the implication of his wish will not be granted, and that the exclusion orders will not be renewed time after time at the point when they lapse. The principle of requiring a re-application seems to me to be right.
  Notwithstanding those two improvements, the Opposition's argument remains one of principle. We are asked to support the internal exile of what amounts to innocent men and women. I shall turn to the concept and definition of innocent men and women in a moment, because my remarks apply with equal force to part IV. Indeed, that part is just as objectionable as part II.
  Part IV proposes powers of arrest and prolonged detention. It proposes 48 hours' detention on the sole authority of the police, and a further five days on the Home Secretary's fiat. Although I welcome the small revisions that allow the Home Secretary more flexibility in deciding whether a man or woman should have an extended detention of one, two, three, four or five days, the unacceptable principle remains. According to our law, arrested persons should be brought to court as soon as possible, because, uncharged and untried, they are innocent. The men and women about whom we are talking who are excluded from one part of the United Kingdom and who are arrested and held without charge or conviction are innocent people.
  I have made that point in previous debates and someone has always said, as the evening wore on, "Ah, such people may not have been convicted by the courts, but we know them to be guilty even if we cannot prove it." It is said that that is why such people are arrested, and that even if we do not know them to be guilty and cannot prove their guilt, we know that they associate with people who are guilty and reprehensible in every way. If there is any logic, the logic behind the power must lie in the assumption that there are such guilty men and women who cannot be convicted according to the process of the law, but who must nevertheless be detained. I can think of no more dangerous denial of liberty than taking powers to arrest and detain on the basis that such people cannot be convicted in court, but that, as the Government know that they are guilty, they must nevertheless be imprisoned.
  Unless we know a man to be guilty and can convict him in this country at least, he should not be arrested, detained or held in those circumstances.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend remember what happened recently in Zimbabwe? The very Conservative Members who seek to introduce this Bill cried out loud—quite rightly in my opinion — about those who were incarcerated by the Government there—[HON. MEMBERS: "For how long?"] —although they had not been found guilty. It does not

  65
  matter for how long. It is the principle that counts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is making the point that the double standards being employed by Conservative Members cannot possibly lead to anything that will help to end the intractable struggle that we are all involved in.
  Mr. Hattersley: I had intended to avoid international comparisons but some Conservative Members cried out "For how long?". It seems that we have a new concept of freedom—that it is a free society if people are arrested and detained without trial for a little while, but that it is not a free society if they are arrested and detained for a long time. That is a new concept of our peerless liberties and internal freedoms. However, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seems to be somewhat agitated and may wish to intervene.
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was arguing about the length of time. He said that it was the understanding in our law that it was all right to arrest someone provided that he is brought before the court as soon as possible. As he well knows, the law does not specify any time. It may be 24, 36 or 48 hours. If someone is detained for longer than that it is wrong. Therefore, I do not quite understand why he should object to hon. Members talking about the length of time.
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall explain the position to the right hon. Gentleman. I had assumed that he understood the legislation before us. My complaint is that according to our normal procedures a man or woman is brought to trial at the first opportunity. Under the powers contained in the Bill a person is arrested and detained and not brought to trial at all. It is not the intention to bring him to trial. Therefore, there is a substantial difference in the two judicial systems.
  I shall remind the House of the statistics. Since 1974 295 exclusion orders have been made in Great Britain, but only 52 of those affected have even been charged with any offence. The other 243 have not even been charged with breaking the law in any way. The position is even more disturbing given the record for arrest and detention. Up to the end of last year 5,555 people had been arrested under the Act. Of them, 88 per cent. were released without charge or exclusion. Only 83 of those 5,555 individuals were found guilty of any offence under the Act. The legislation is intended to apply to people who are technically, and therefore literally, innocent. That is wholly unacceptable, not least — to repeat the amendment — because the necessity, validity and efficacy of the provisions are by no means proven.
  The Home Secretary tells us that Lord Jellicoe concluded that the measure was necessary. I do not dispute that, so the Home Secretary can relax. However, by his terms of reference, Lord Jellicoe was required to conclude that the measure was necessary.
  Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is not doing justice to Lord Jellicoe. In paragraph 1 Lord Jellicoe said that before he took on the assignment on the terms that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined, he satisfied himself that
  "some form of special legislation was indeed required to deal with the continuing threat posed by terrorism throughout the United Kingdom."
  He then said:
  66
  "I have since become convinced, in the course of the more detailed inquiries I have carried out in the last nine months or so, that if special legislation effectively reduces terrorism, as I believe it does, it should be continued as long as a substantial terrorist threat remains."
  Therefore, it will not do to say that Lord Jellicoe's terms of reference did not allow him to consider whether the legislation was necessary. He satisfied himself of that before he took on the assignment.
  Mr. Hattersley: If the Home Secretary is going to continue to interrupt me, I hope that in future he will address himself to the point that I am making. I do not want to diminish the authority or validity of Lord Jellicoe's work in any way. I simply assert something that is irrefutable. Lord Jellicoe's terms of reference required him to consider not the necessity for such powers but their operation. The terms of reference are specific. Had Lord Jellicoe wished to report that no such powers were necessary, it would not have been within his terms of reference.
  However, Lord Jellicoe said something that I hope the Home Secretary will listen to carefully and try to understand. In paragraph 55 Lord Jellicoe said:
  "There can be no clear proof that the arrest powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act are, or are not, an essential weapon in the fight against terrorism."
  If we are to give Lord Jellicoe the credit that the Home Secretary demands, and which I am sure Lord Jellicoe deserves, we must give proper weight to that judgment. That judgment is as it says it is. The Government are taking these powers not because they are certain that they will in some way assist in the fight against terrorism, but because they might do so and because we hope —[Interruption.] Perhaps the Home Secretary would like me to say that such powers are being taken because Lord Jellicoe thinks that they will have that effect. Others have thought that they will not have that effect.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will calm himself and accept that in paragraph 55 there is that agnostic judgment about the efficacy and validity of those powers. In the name of a judgment that cannot be proved either way, 500 innocent men and women are locked up, and 250 innocent men and women are banished. That cannot be justified in a free society.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Surely it is preposterous to refer selectively to paragraph 55, in which the noble Lord referred to his ability to take a more informed view, without repeating the conclusion to that section, which appears in paragraph 65. In bold type it says:
  "In the light of my enquiries and of the evidence submitted to me, I have therefore come to the firm conclusion that if the power of extended detention were abolished, the police both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland would be seriously handicapped in dealing with terrorists."
  Surely selective quotations from Lord Jellicoe's report will not help anyone. I hope that the Labour party will have the intellectual honesty to take Lord Jellicoe's report as a whole.
  Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to tell him that I agree with Lord Jellicoe that there is a case for these powers, I give him the pleasure of conceding that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the point that I am making. On my and Lord Jellicoe's judgment there is no certainty in these matters. We are sending innocent men and women to prison in the hope that this will prevent

  67
  terrorism. Lord Jellicoe and, I suspect, the Home Secretary believe that it will help to prevent terrorism. However, we are not acting with any degree of certainty.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison rose——
  Mr. Hattersley: I give way for the last time because I am delaying other speakers.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: What clear proof—I use Lord Jellicoe's words—would the right hon. Gentleman require if he were the Home Secretary faced with the problem of countering terrorism? How can there be clear proof? What evidence, proof or facts would the right hon. Gentleman require if he were in the position of my right hon. and learned Friend who has responsibility for these matters?
  Mr. Hattersley: The Labour Party would do a great deal more than has been done before we started locking up and exiling innocent men and women. That is the nature of my complaint. I hope that the hon. Gentleman now understands it.
  Lord Jellicoe made another judgment about the continuation of these powers. He said that the legislation
  "should remain in force only while it continues to be effective, only if its aims cannot be achieved by use of the general law, if it does not make unacceptable inroads on civil liberties".
  Before the Home Secretary leaps to his feet to say that on all three points Lord Jellicoe answered yes, I say that I know that to be the case. However, on a closer examination it is difficult to say that the three rules which Lord Jellicoe laid down have been observed.
  We all agree —even the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison)—that the effectiveness of the rules cannot be certain. The Home Secretary may insist that there is some certainty and says that if we knew what the Government know but cannot tell us we would understand how necessary these measures are. That is not an acceptable basis on which to pass legislation in a free Parliament, nor is it acceptable for a free Parliament to be told that terrorism can be combated in this fashion through the collection of information. That is an argument for perpetual powers while even the slightest degree of terrorism continues.
  I fear that, although the five-year limit to the operation of the Bill reduces the permanence of the powers—at least, in the Bill's title — it will reduce the annual scrutiny that we give to the legislation as it comes up for renewal every year. Many of my hon. Friends would argue that there has been insufficient scrutiny. In March this year we scrutinised the legislation in a one-and-a-half hour debate after 10 pm. I do not doubt that, in future, Government business managers will say to the Opposition, "Of course, we cannot have a full day's debate. After all, the legislation lasts only five years." I believe that we will reduce rather than increase — as the Home Secretary suggests—the time for scrutiny of this Bill.
  Much of the object of the Bill could be achieved if the courts were used for the purposes outlined in the Bill. There is not a scrap of evidence in the Jellicoe report to demonstrate that the courts cannot be used in this way. There is an assertion, but no justifying evidence, that the courts could be used a great deal more than they are at the moment to prevent genuinely suspected terrorists from entering this country, rather than having general trawls,
  68
  and to obtain convictions from guilty persons rather than act as intelligence-gathering institutions. Surely the question about unacceptable inroads into civil liberties can have only one answer.
  Another question posed by Lord Jellicoe is whether sufficient powers would help to defeat terrorism or whether they would hinder it. I remind the House of the words of the noble Lord Fitt, whose judgment on these matters was properly respected and whose heroic opposition to terrorism was properly admired in the House.
  He had no doubt about the effect of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on the prospects of terrorism and terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. First, it had the definite effect of convincing law-abiding Irishmen that they were being discriminated against by the Parliament in Westminster. The Act was intended to distinguish between them and others. The Act was the Act that bit on them when, for wholly legitimate purposes, they came to the United Kingdom. The Act was something that enabled the forces of terrorism to argue in Derry and in Belfast that there is one law for the English but the normal rules of law do not apply in Northern Ireland, when it is convenient for the Imperial Parliament, as they still call it, to erode the proper civil liberties that should apply to us all.
  I have no doubt that Lord Fitt was correct constantly to argue that the existence of those powers, instead of driving a wedge between terrorists in Northern Ireland and loyal and law-abiding Irishmen, drove a wedge between the law-abiding Irish community and the Parliament here in Westminster. That wedge was partly driven in because of the way in which the law was applied.
  If we are dealing with selective quotations from the Jellicoe report, I hope that I may select three that the Home Secretary did not think it worth while mentioning in his speech today. The criticism embodied in them is in no way accommodated in the new Bill and it was not even acknowledged by the Home Secretary in his speech.
  Lord Jellicoe, in paragraph 134 — I provide that information for assiduous hon. Members on the Back Benches—said that there was some truth in the criticism that the powers were normally used against the casual and the unkempt. In paragraph 101, Lord Jellicoe said that the officers at some ports were often tempted to use the powers to question visitors about non-terrorist crimes. In paragraph 101, Lord Jellicoe said that it was relatively common for five or six days of detention to elapse before access to solicitors was permitted.
  If we are not to alienate the Irish population, the Home Secretary must turn his mind to that matter. He has not done so today, nor, as I understand it, has he done so within his Department. Because of such facts, as well as the existence of these powers, terrorists are able to argue that Irishmen are afforded a second-class sort of justice when they arrive in Britain. And because we enable them to do that, it gives bonus and benefit only to the enemies of law and order rather than to those of us who want to see law and order throughout the entire United Kingdom.
  I end with my final quotation from Lord Jellicoe's report. In paragraph 10, Lord Jellicoe says:
  "The most important assistance which the police can have in the fight against terrorism is not special powers but the support of the public. It is vital that such powers do not unnecessarily alienate … any section of the law-abiding population".
  Because we believe that they do, we argue that as the practical reason for voting against the Bill. Add to that our

  69
  argument in principle—the case that civil liberties are intolerably eroded—and I believe that the case for the reasoned amendment becomes unassailable. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it tonight.
  6.29 pm
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: For 25 minutes or half an hour we have been listening to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) attempting to explain why in 1983 he is advising his right hon. and hon. Friends to behave in exactly the opposite way to that in which they behaved in 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979 and for all the years since 1974 when he and his right hon. and hon. Friends held the responsibility for this country's affairs.
  The right hon. Gentleman's explanation of that volte face is unconvincing. He called the arguments of principle in aid a great deal. He argued that it is wrong for us to lock people up for more than the minimum period of 24, 36 or 48 hours or to stop them moving freely about the country. I agree that such action is undesirable, but it was equally undesirable in 1979. If he thinks that such action is undesirable now, why did the right hon. Gentleman vote for it in 1979? He did not address himself to that part of the argument. I still do not fully understand why. It is rather sad that the right hon. Gentleman should put himself up for—or be put up to argue—the case that he has made today.
  I agree that we are concerned with principle in this case. I dislike the idea of parting from the principle that if a person is locked up he should be brought before a magistrate as soon as possible. That principle is one of the great strengths of our system and I dislike departing from it as much as does the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Jellicoe report many times. I should like to make just one quotation. Paragraph 65 reads:
  I have therefore come to the firm conclusion that if the power of extended detention were abolished, the police both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland would be seriously handicapped in dealing with terrorists."
  That is the conclusion that I reached when I had responsibility for Northern Ireland. It is the conclusion that anyone who has to deal with this hideous problem and tries to preserve peace reaches. That is why I support my right hon. and learned Friend and why we should give the Bill a Second Reading.
  We do not want a Bill such as this, but nor do we want the terrorism that has been responsible for so many hideous crimes for so long. Like Lord Jellicoe, I see no sign of terrorism diminishing. No hon. Member can say that he believes that there will be no more terrorism in a year's time. I wish that we could say that, but we cannot. The Government and their agents, the police, need extra powers to deal with this phenomenon.
  My right hon. and learned Friend dealt with the Bill in some detail. He told us that part IV deals with arrest and detention and that part II deals with exclusion. There are differences between them. Clause 12(1), (2) and (3) enable a person to be arrested on suspicion and detained for 48 hours and the Secretary of State to extend that period to a maximum of seven days if he thinks fit. My right hon. and learned Friend told us that this part of the Act is not confined to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend drew the House's attention to 12(2)(b) which refers to
  70
  "acts of terrorism of any other description except acts connected solely with the affairs of the United Kingdom".
  That is odd as it appears to enable a constable to arrest and keep for 48 hours—and for the Secretary of State to extend that period of detention to seven days—the sole survivor of those who occupied the Iranian embassy a few years ago. It appears that it would also enable the Secretary of State to extend the detention of a person who broke into the Ulster Office in London and held people who worked there captive in pursuit of the aims of his organisation in Northern Ireland. However, clause 12(2)(b) would not enable the Home Secretary to do anything about a person who broke into the offices of the Department of the Environment and held many of the staff at gunpoint, demanding that the Secretary of State for the Environment guarantee that the greater Manchester council not be abolished. That, too, seems rather odd. Such acts are all the same and are carried out for the same motive, yet only some offenders can be caught under the Act. I should lake my right hon. and learned Friend to examine that matter.
  Part IV provides powers that are not confined to terrorist acts concerned with Northern Ireland whereas those provided by part II are. That, too, is curious. An international terrorist, for example, can be arrested and held for seven days under part IV but he cannot be excluded under part II. I should have thought that the most sensible course of action would be to stop him entering the country in the first place. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he thought that he had powers under immigration legislation to stop such a person coming here. I am not sure about that.
  As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, what happens if that person is already here and has a right to be here? Immigration legislation will riot help the Home Secretary then. Many of us have experience of immigration laws, how they work and the safeguards that we have properly insisted upon. As a result someone who wants to come to Britain is often able to spin out his stay here, albeit not exactly where he wants to be, for months. The Act enables an excluded person to be got rid of in seven days plus such time as it takes the Home Secretary to consider what his adviser says. That need riot be more than two days. That process is a much cleaner, quicker and more effective method of dealing with terrorists. My right hon. and learned Friend would be prudent to re-examine this part of the Act to assess whether it would be useful to extend to international terrorists powers of exclusion that are now used in respect of acts connected with Northern Ireland.
  Ms. Harriet Harman: Is not the right hon. Gentleman worried that someone who is likely to be subject to an exclusion order has no right to know that he is under suspicion, that he has no right to know whether there is any evidence against him, that he has no right to cross-examine such evidence if there be any, that he has no right to a trial or public hearing, that he has no right to know on what grounds, if any, representations that he has made have been rejected and that he has no right to appeal to the court?
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: Yes. I shall explain why shortly. As Lord Jellicoe says, such decisions are Executive ones, not those of the courts. If they were, people would come before the courts. The hon. Lady can argue that such powers should not exist. I believe that they should. I am suggesting that if they exist my right hon. and

  71
  learned Friend should consider exclusion as he might find it helpful—it would certainly be more logical—if he had such powers in connection with offences other than those to do with Northern Ireland.
  I occasionally used the Secretary of State's power under clause 12(3) to extend the period of detention. It was never an easy power to use. I was always anxious that I was not doing the right thing by signing, or withholding my signature from, an application. Arising out of that difficulty, I was glad to see Lord Jellicoe's recommendation that, by administrative means, the Home Secretary should ensure that he is given more information to help him make up his mind about whether to sign an application and that the matter should be followed up. If an application is granted there should always be a report of its outcome. Both those procedures are helpful, first, in enabling the Home Secretary to make up his mind and, secondly, to those making the application, who will know that it is subject to scrutiny.
  In paragraph 41, page 15, of his report Lord Jellicoe states:
  "The legislation provides that 'the Secretary of State' may extend a period of detention. This does not mean that an extension has to be in writing under the Secretary of State's own hand, and it could in law be carried out on his behalf by an official. However, while there have been rare occasions when authority to detain beyond 48 hours has been granted on the responsibility of an official, the application has been seen and approved by a minister as soon as possible thereafter."
  Soon after I assumed my responsibilities in Northern Ireland, I came across a case where an application has been signed by an official, and I immediately gave instructions that that was never to happen again. Obviously, I wished to sign applications myself, if that were physically possible, and if I could not, I made it clear that in my Department no officials could sign it, only Ministers, who were answerable to me and ultimately to the House. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that he wished to follow that course. All right hon. and hon. Members would wish him to reiterate that statement and especially his assurance that applications will never be signed by officials.
  There is no crime of terrorism known to our law. All crimes committed by terrorists are crimes in themselves, whatever the motive: murder, causing bodily harm, kidnapping and destruction of property and so on. Terrorists are criminals — no more and no less. However, because the Bill is entitled the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and because we believe that it is right to give the Secretary of State special powers to bring such people before the courts to prevent their committing further offences, we must define their acts. Clause 14 does that. It states:
  "'Terrorism' means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear".
  I dislike that definition, which was given in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1976 and in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, because of the word "political". Political aims and objectives are respectable, and all right hon. and hon. Members have them, but violence is not respectable. I fear that the definition does not help us. We have extradition treaties with a range of countries. From time to time we seek to have extradited from those countries somebody who is wanted here in connection with a crime committed
  72
  in pursuit of terrorist activities. As we all know, in more than one fairly good democratic country we have lost, and the person we want is not extradited because he goes to the courts and claims that his acts were political. I do not agree with that. I do not agree that, because the motive for murdering someone is political, it is any better than murdering someone for his money. However, it seems to work in some countries to our disadvantage. Such people can claim that their acts are political by referring to our legislation. They can say, "It says that it was political in the British Act." I wish to get rid of that word.
  We all know what we mean by "terrorism". We do not mean terrorising elderly ladies in order to steal their money, although that is just as terrifying. We mean people who wish to overthrow or to divert the Government of the country. I am not competent to suggest an alternative definition—others could do that better than I— but I suggest the definition in clause 3(6) at the top of page 4, which is
  "acts of terrorism … designed to influence public opinion or Government policy".
  That is not ideal, but it is better than the definition in the Bill. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will address his mind to the matter to try to find a more satisfactory definition.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The inclusion of the word "political" here is not so much hallowed by our domestic municipal law but is a commonly accepted principle of public international law in the context of extradition, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The political exception in matters of extradition has operated not just for decades but since well into the last century and has given rise to little difficulty.
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: If one believes, as I do, that murder is murder whatever the cause, all that I can say is that it should not operate in that way.
  Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: No, I will not, because I am about to conclude my remarks, and there is little time for other hon. Members to join in the debate because we started late.
  I entirely support my right hon. and learned Friend in bringing forward the Bill. It contains several alterations, all of which are more liberating, as suggested by Lord Jellicoe, whose review has been most helpful and to whom we owe a great debt of thanks. I am sure that we need the powers. I hope that we shall not need them for the full five years of the Act's life, but I have a nasty feeling that we may.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Any form of legislation that introduces not even a judicial power but an Executive power of banishment must be extremely unwelcome, for the idea of banishment is completely foreign to our idea of law in the United Kingdom. For we should bear in mind that in this debate we are talking about a United Kingdom problem. We are not talking about banishing people to a foreign country across a hostile water; we are talking to a considerable extent about banishing them from the major parts of the United Kingdom to another part. Therefore, we should hesitate strongly before adopting such Executive powers.

  73
  Introduced as it was by a Labour Government, and renewed by a Labour Government in 1976, prevention of terrorism legislation has come to have a public perception which we are forced to accept: not only does the public accept it, but it has been accepted by politicians at both ends of the political spectrum in the House during the years. I suspect that were the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) the Home Secretary now, he too would be introducing legislation strikingly similar to this.
  Responsible Governments and, indeed, the public rightly regard it as the duty of the Government to protect the maximum number of members of the public possible; to protect the public from outrages such as the Regents Park massacre, and the Birmingham pub bombings years earlier. Sadly, there is no evidence that the likelihood of outrages of that sort has diminished. Therefore, with very grave misgivings the parliamentary Liberal party has decided that it must support the principle of this legislation.
  It is important to bear in mind that we are not judging a terrorism Bill as in the past this House has, for example, judged a theft Bill or a homicide Bill. We are judging a Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the very idea and definition of which involves the concept of Executive as opposed to judicial powers. If we accept the need for those Executive powers, we must in principle support a Bill of this type. However, in Committee we shall seek adamantly to obtain changes in the Bill because we regard some of its provisions as far more draconian than are necessary for such extreme legislation.
  I remind the House that Lord Shackleton—we have almost forgotten about him in this debate—said in paragraph 159 of his report in 1978:
  "I do not believe that legislation of this kind should have any degree of permanence without a continuing and careful scrutiny of its operation and its implications for civil liberties. Although it is not for me to judge what measures nay, in the longer term, be necessary to deal with terrorism, I hope that the temporary concept of this legislation will not diminish."
  Although Lord Jellicoe much more recently spoke of a maximum duration of five years, we Liberals are of the view that a five-year maximum is too long, that three years is quite long enough and that the whole matter should be fully argued once again, not merely in terms of annual review, but in relation to a new Bill, if need be, in three years time. We shall so argue.
  Another matter that causes us particular concern is the duration of exclusion orders. While we accept that, unfortunately, they are necessary, exclusion orders may have drastic effects on the families and working and business lives of those who are excluded. We must remember that these are often—indeed, usually—people against whom no crime has been proved or even alleged. We are of the view that an exclusion period greater than two years exacerbates these problems, and we shall oppose that. We shall do so bearing in mind our view that exclusion orders of themselves offend the European Convention on Human Rights. While at present we accept their necessity, we feel that not enough attention has been given to the relationship between this proposed legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights. We are also worried about the lack of provision for safeguarding the rights and interests of those who are detained.
  It shows a limited regard for this House that the Government have not seen fit to publish the new Police and Criminal Evidence Bill before this debate. It makes
  74
  one wonder whether the Government want to hurry the Bill through because of their embarrassment at not meeting all the Jellicoe demands in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
  Let me take a little time to remind the House of some of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations, which are closely intertwined with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and which demanded that a responsible conduct of this matter required the publication of that Bill before today's debate.
  In conclusion 17 on page 91 of his report Lord Jellicoe said:
  "Subject to additional or alternative provisions relating to welfare, access to legal advice and the right not to be held incommunicado, all provisions of the Home Office draft code relating to the treatment of persons in police custody should apply to persons arrested or detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in England and Wales."
  In conclusion 21 on page 92 he said:
  "The absolute right of access to a solicitor after 48 hours' detention under the emergency legislation, which applies in Northern Ireland, should apply also throughout Great Britain for persons held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. In relation to England and Wales, this absolute right should be included in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill; in relation to Scotland, pending an appropriate legislative opportunity, it should be incorporated in force orders".
  The noble Lord said in conclusion 22:
  "Persons detained under the Act for more than 48 hours anywhere in the United Kingdom should be entitled to legal advice on a similar basis to 'ordinary' suspects in England and Wales under the proposals in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill".
  In conclusion 23 Lord Jellicoe said:
  "It should be the duty of the uniformed custody officer, after the suspect has spent 48 hours in custody under the Act, to remind him of his absolute right to consult a solicitor and to ask him if he wishes to exercise this right. The reply should be entered on the custody record, and the suspect invited to sign. If he refuses to sign, this should be noted. This provision should apply throughout the United Kingdom and should be incorporated, as appropriate, in force orders and in the draft code relating to the treatment of suspects".
  I quote finally from conclusion 25 on page 92, which stated:
  "Any person detained at a police station under the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be entitled (a) to consult privately with a solicitor at any time during his detention, and (b) to have a friend or relative or other person known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare informed without delay of the fact and place of his detention, unless an officer of superintendent rank or above believes on reasonable grounds that such consultation or notification would have one of the four consequences set out at recommendation 24. In the case of both (a) and (b), the police should lose this limited discretion to refuse on the expiry of 48 hours' detention. These provisions should apply throughout the United Kingdom, and should be included, as appropriate, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and in force orders".
  I understood the Home Secretary to be giving some assurances that in certain respects the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill would reflect recommendations made by Lord Jellicoe in relation to that Bill, but I did not understand him to give the assurance that all those requirements would be met in that Bill. We just do not know, because the Bill has not been published. We shall be watchful of that. It is crucial that Lord Jellicoe's recommendations in relation to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill should not be ignored, for they ask for no more than the signs which mark out a society which cares about fundamental civil rights as compared with one which does not. In deciding whether to continue our support when the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House, we

  75
  shall scrutinise closely the amendments that it has been possible to push through in Committee and the Government's attitude to them.
  We are especially concerned, too, because the Bill fails to provide another important safety measure — that "continuing scrutiny" of which Lord Shackleton spoke so many years ago. Some form of continuing monitoring of the legislation from week to week is needed — if necessary by reference to a Select Committee, or by other means — so that the next inquiry on Shackleton or Jellicoe lines will be founded not on speculation but on evidence.
  7 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be called to make my maiden speech. I make this speech representing the maiden constituency of Leicestershire, North-West, which makes it a double first.
  Let me tell the House something of my constituency. It was created out of what I would claim were the best parts of the constituencies of Bosworth and Loughborough. To the north there is the historic town of Castle Donington, near to which is the east midlands airport, which is soon to have its runway extended. There is also the Castle Donington race track, which will host the Formula 1 British grand prix in the not-too-distant future.
  To the west is the town of Ashby-de-la-Zouch. I hasten to assure the House that the town of Ashby has been there a good deal longer than I have and, as far as I know, my family did not take their name from it. Hon. Members will recall that Ashby has a castle which was destroyed by the parliamentary forces in the civil war; a castle which was made famous by Sir Walter Scott in his novel Ivanhoe. To the east of the constituency is the town of Shepshed and to the south the important town of Coalville, which, as its name implies, was founded on the Leicestershire coalfield. The pits of this coalfield are among the oldest in this country and have a wealth of things of industrial and archaeological interest. Robert Stevenson designed and built machinery for these mines and it is hoped that they will be retained for posterity as museums.
  Sadly, the mines in the Coalville area are about to close and we shall be facing an unemployment rate as high as anywhere in the country. This is a matter which I shall be anxious to raise at another time, in another debate. Hon. Members will appreciate that I represent a diverse constituency, consisting as it does of rural areas, some light industry and the mines.
  I pay tribute to my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), and the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell). My constituents were fortunate in being represented by those two hon. Members, each of whom, in his different way, looked after their interests with such care and gave so much to the area. I am grateful to both of them for their help and kindness before, during and since the general election.
  As to the Bill that we are debating, I represent middle England and I feel that I also represent the values of middle Englishmen and Englishwomen. We have a justified pride in our great institutions, and in particular in our legal system. As a barrister, practising at the criminal bar, I share in that pride. One of the most important rights, if not the most important right, is that of liberty. No Englishman
  76
  may be kept in custody indefinitely, without charge, and without being brought before the courts. If such an event were to occur, the prerogative writ of habeas corpus would be issued. In recent cases, the courts have been granting this writ after suspects have been detained for 48 hours, and rightly so, for a man's liberty is not lightly to be taken away. Those who have seen the effects of imprisonment know that 24 hours is a long time, and 48 hours is a very long time.
  I am pleased to see, in clause 12(3), that that period of 48 hours is given statutory force. However, the rest of that clause effectively restricts the court's powers to grant a writ of habeas corpus, as the Home Secretary is authorised to extend the period of detention to up to five days. Therefore, we are seeing an erosion of an important principle which has evolved over the centuries, and it is an erosion which can be supported only because of the exceptional nature of the problems confronting us and, more importantly, because the Act, if we pass the Bill, will have a limited life.
  Most lawyers dislike evidence that is obtained from a suspect after a long period of detention. The longer a person is detained, the less value anything that he may say has, and I have experience of false confessions. While these exceptional circumstances require exceptional measures, I am pleased that the Home Secretary will consider carefully each application for an extension. The clause should not be used as a cover for offences that fall outside the Bill.
  I should like to see a safeguard that prevents any evidence obtained in interviews with a subject during a period of extended detention being used for offences other than those under the Bill. We must be vigilant and not let these terrorist organisations erode our liberties, because that is what they have set out to do. Having said that, I thank the House for listening so courteously to me and I shall support the Bill as a necessary measure.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on his maiden speech. He spoke with clarity, he is articulate and he showed an interest in the part of the United Kingdom from which I come. I hope that he will continue to show the same interest in our problems and in the difficulties that we face.
  I have lived with the awful reality of terrorism for 14 years, and when I examine the Bill I find it difficult to accept that virtually every variation from the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 appears to be designed to give greater rights to the villains—in this case the terrorists—while the Bill appears to take little or no account of the victim. I would find it most disquieting if any hon. Members were to seek to condone this approach by their arguments.
  Part I does not apply to Northern Ireland, only to Great Britain. Nevertheless, one must view it with scepticism, especially subsection (1)(c). One knows that it will simply not be enforced. The equivalent part of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 is never implemented and the Provisional Sinn Fein, in the persons of Gerry Adams, Danny Morrison and Owen Canon, regularly contravene this law with impunity. The right of those who speak or act in support of proscribed organisations to broadcast by radio or television in

  77
  Northern Ireland or in Great Britain has not been dealt with. However, such actions contravene if not the letter, the spirit of the Act.
  The Provisional Sinn Fein has never equivocated in its advocacy of the merits of republican violence, which in today's terms means the genocide of Protestant farmers such as Cyrus Campbell in my constituency, a man who lived and worked close to the frontier with the Irish Republic. At least in relation to such broadcasts the Irish Republic's laws are more realistic than the laws that exist in the United Kingdom.
  In part II, it appears that there is no longer any justification for restricting these measures to terrorism specifically related to Northern Ireland. The world today is brimful of terrorism and people are living in a fool's paradise if they imagine that it will not spill over into the United Kingdom, with a view, in the words of the Bill, to influencing opinion and policy on matters all round the globe. As it stands, the Bill is thus an anachronism.
  The Bill is an anachronism in another respect. The original legislation was passed in circumstances, I believe, of near panic, when the rate of terrorist murders here and in Ulster was immensely higher than it is today. If this legislation were being introduced now for the first time, no one would dare to argue in favour of the insulting division it creates between Great Britain and Northern Ireland or of making it possible within the United Kingdom for a citizen to be ordered to go and live in another part.
  To those who advocate that powers to arrest and detain for a period of up to seven days should be set aside because that may lead to an erosion of liberty, I would point out that both Lord Jellicoe and those of us who have to live with terrorism recognise that there are times when good intelligence—sure intelligence—and admissible evidence are not the same thing. In the war against terrorism good intelligence can be ignored only if we are prepared to sacrifice the safety of the innocent. It is the duty of the police to act on good intelligence in an effort to obtain, by questioning, admissible evidence.
  I ask whether 48 hours or 96 hours or seven days are too long, or not long enough, to hold someone about whom there is good intelligence. I do not know, but I know that if legislation were incorporated in this Bill to ensure that it was not possible for a suspect to have the automatic and inherent right to remain silent when asked a reasonable question, we should not find that, again and again, the guilty go free and the innocent continue to be slaughtered.
  Today we should direct our efforts to the maintenance of public confidence in the law's ability to suppress terrorism and to support the security forces in that effort. I fear that this Bill will do little to protect British citizens in Northern Ireland. Let me rephrase what I said at the start. Why have so many hon. Members argued to give greater rights to the felon—in this case, the terrorist— but appear to take little or, indeed, no account of the victim? Unless the Bill can be strengthened, and unless there is a removal of the anachronisms in part II, to which I alluded, my colleagues and I will have the greatest reservations about supporting its Third Reading.
  7.13 pm
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). When he speaks about terrorism he does not speak in an academic manner. He has the knowledge
  78
  which is derived from representing a constituency which suffers from terrorism and which is close to that border across which so many terrorists escape and take refuge. I am glad to follow the hon. Member also because I agree with his strictures on part II, the provision which denies persons from Northern Ireland the same rights as other United Kingdom citizens to move and to reside within the United Kingdom.
  Since direct rule was brought in we have been accustomed to Northern Ireland being used either as an assault course for cadet Ministers or as Siberia for dissident Ministers and their disciples. However, Northern Ireland should not be used, as Ulster people complain, as a dustbin for suspects from Great Britain. Most of the traffic, as the Jellicoe report explains, is in one direction. Paragraph 165 says:
  "Up to the end of 1982, 230 excluded persons had been removed from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and 37 from Great Britain to the Republic of Ireland."
  The power has been exercised predominantly against citizens of the United Kingdom.
  Lord Jellicoe, to whom the House owes a deep debt of gratitude. recommended, and the Bill proposes, certain mitigation of the power of exclusion exercised hitherto, but it remains a mild version of the internal exile which some very distinguished Russians endured under the Tsars and since. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not appeal to the Conservative Benches because, as the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, had he been sitting where my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sits he would be proposing or supporting legislation of this kind. Nevertheless, he spoke of internal banishment and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of internal banishment as provided for in this legislation. Indeed, it conflicts with what Lord Jellicoe says in paragraph 11, that
  "special anti-terrorist legislation should be framed and administered so as to minimise rather than to accentuate the differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom".
  I expect that I am not the only hon. Member to have received a report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. That is the body in Northern Ireland presided over by the right hon. David Bleakley. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights describes exclusion as
  "punitive in effect … and a diminution of an important civil right."
  It says later:
  "As Lord Jellicoe conceded, much the same arguments apply to justify internment without trial".
  I would describe this power of exclusion as interning someone on a long lead. It would be more honest and more efficacious, and less destructive of family life and ties, to reintroduce and use highly selectively the power of internment, later called detention, which in earlier troubles proved successful in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, against the major organisation proscribed in this legislation, an organization—the IRA —which is the common enemy of the Republic and the United Kingdom.
  I make only that one point. I put it forward not dogmatically but for consideration, and I support the Bill.
  7.18 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: It is clear to me that undermining the administration of justice—which the Bill does—will do two things. First, it is unfair and

  79
  unjust to innocent individuals haplessly caught up in its sweeping powers. Secondly, far from reducing terrorism, it assists it, by providing terrorists with a fresh source of grievance.
  I wish to deal with three points in the Bill: first, the banning of organisations which "appear" to be concerned with terrorism; secondly, the offence of withholding information about terrorism; and thirdly, exclusion orders.
  First, the powers which the Bill seeks to give Ministers to deal with organisations which seem to be concerned with terrorism are very wide and dangerous. The Bill seeks not to ban the Irish Republican Army or the Irish National Liberation Army, but to give the Minister powers to ban organisations which "appear" to him to be involved with terrorism. Once such a power is on the statute book the House will have no control over its use. If it appears to the Minister that an organisation is involved in terrorism, no inquiry is required, no evidence need be produced, there is no right of appeal to the court and no parliamentary debate need take place. The power could be used to ban those organisations whose supporters regard them as political parties. That is the power that the Government are seeking to place on the statute book.
  We have no business to put into Ministers' hands powers so open to misuse. It is not good enough to say that we should trust the Minister and rely on his good will. Parliament must be vigilant. We must guard our democratic rights. We have no business to abrogate those rights to a Minister. We must also remember that, however offensive the views put forward, the right to express them is a basic civil liberty. If individuals conspire to commit a crime or incite someone else to commit a crime, they are guilty of a specific criminal offence. That is how the matter should be dealt with, not by the wholesale banning of organisations. Conservative Members have said that terrorists are criminals. I agree, and those who commit criminal acts should have the criminal law used against them.
  Secondly, I am deeply worried about the offence of withholding information. My hon. Friends and I are in favour of the public co-operating with the police when they seek to investigate or prevent criminal offences from being committed. It is a contradiction in terms to believe that people can be forced to co-operate or to seek the cooperation of a community by threatening its members with a criminal charge if they do not co-operate.
  The Bill also undermines the fundamental principle of the right to silence. We must remember that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty and is not obliged to incriminate himself. The offence of withholding information cuts right across such a principle. Furthermore, it cuts across the fundamental right of an innocent person to go about his business without being arrested or detained unless he himself is suspected of having committed a criminal offence.
  Much has been heard about Lord Jellicoe's propsals, but Lord Shackleton suggested that this power in the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be repealed, saying that it had
  "an unpleasant ring about it in terms of civil liberties."
  In practice, the relevant section of the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been used, as this provision in the Bill
  80
  will doubtless be used, as a sweep-up provision when there is insufficient evidence to charge terrorist suspects with substantive offences.
  As to exclusion orders, we criticise other countries for using internal exile, but that is precisely what this provision means. The person about to be excluded has no right even to know that he is under suspicion; he has no right to know the evidence against him; he has no right to cross-examine any evidence that has been put forward; he has no right to a trial or a public hearing; he has no right to know, when representations have been made, on what grounds those representations are considered or rejected; and he has no right of appeal to a court.
  The provision which proposes an interview is no more than a charade. It does not change the basic injustice of the way in which internal exile will operate. Even if the Government believe that those who are the subject of such orders are genuinely involved in terrorism but cannot be charged, what business have the Government to exclude suspected terrorists to Northern Ireland or vice versa?
  For those reasons, the Opposition will vote against the Bill.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I congratulate, in his absence, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on his maiden speech. He spoke well and in a forthright manner on this matter.
  I have listened to the debate and especially to the two most recent speeches, those from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who has the greatest experience of the impact of terrorism on the community. About a year or 18 months ago, I spoke in the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and witnessed at first hand some of the relatives of those who had suffered at the hands of terrorists. I accept, of course, that when debating terrorism and the response to it, it is a question of balancing rights and liberties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) wisely said. Northern Ireland has suffered tremendously in recent years. If the loss of constituents in Northern Ireland was occurring in constituencies in England, be it in the constituency of the hon. Member for Peckham or in mine, the outcry would be incredible. If as many murders and terrorist activities were taking place in England, we would be under far greater pressure than we are just because the terrorist activities affect only the 17 Northern Ireland constituencies.
  When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) introduced the Opposition's argument, he was not very convincing when he tried to explain the difference between his present attitude and his attitude when in Government in 1974–79. I do not believe that this legislation breaks new ground of principle in terms of the balance between the people's rights and liberties as compared to those in 1974. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "draconian" for what was done in 1974. However, in 1975 and 1976 and during the ensuing years, when he held ministerial office, he supported the legislation which he now decries, and legislation which does not have the number of safeguards, as a result of the Jellicoe report, as has the legislation before us. During that time, he supported legislation more stringent than that which we are now considering. When

  81
  he speaks of antagonising and alienating law-abiding British citizens, I wonder what the impact of his words will be on people in Northern Ireland who have personally been affected by the terrorism that they have endured year in and year out for the past 10 or 15 years.
  Mr. Flannery: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is a democrat. Is it not possible that he was carrying out a decision by a wide group and that he had opinions of his own—which he had? The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) is not in order. He should inquire more deeply.
  Mr. Proctor: I thought that the Labour Government acted according to collective Cabinet responsibility. If the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook honestly thought as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) describes, he should have done the decent thing and resigned when the reaffirmation of the powers came up for consideration. The right hon. Gentleman did not do that in any of the years that the matter came up. I do not recall that he was strident when in Opposition. Perhaps that was because Mr. Wedgwood Benn cajoled a sizeable section of the Labour Opposition into changing its opinion and that, in the absence of Mr. Benn, the policy has changed.
  Ms. Clare Short: The discussion that is now taking place is wrong. It is suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not believe in what he said. He is not here to answer that allegation. It is disgraceful. My right hon. Friend should be given the opportunity to answer the accusation.
  Mr. Proctor: I was in the Chamber when the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was speaking so he should have the courtesy to be present when I am making my contribution.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Right hon. and hon. Members have to leave the Chamber from time to time and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would respond if he were here. My right hon. Friend said clearly that his anxiety had been increased by the assumption that the legislation was still necessary. He said that we were learning from experience of the growing evidence that the Act was playing into the hands of the paramilitaries. If the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) does not address himself to that, his argument is irrelevant.
  Mr. Proctor: I realise that right hon. and hon. Members must leave the Chamber, but that does not inhibit me from commenting upon a speech. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would be happy about that.
  Of course we are talking about experience. In a democracy people can change their views. Obviously the Opposition Front Bench has changed its view. That is all that I am saying. Government Members do not agree with that change of view. It was not underlined or supported by Earl Jellicoe in his report. The reverse is true. I understand that difficulty is experienced by the official Opposition when a person examines a matter for nine months and comes to a view which is contrary to their view. Earl Jellicoe has looked closely at the experience of recent years; he has made his recommendations and the Government have acted upon them.
  I support the Home Secretary in introducing the legislation. I am sure that in Committee hon. Members
  82
  will discuss the differences between the 1976 legislation and the new measures. We shall have to examine each change to see whether it weakens our attack upon terrorism. The Government will have to justify each change that they propose to ensure that the terrorist will not win. It is best for such a debate to take place in Committee.
  One reason why I am keen to support the legislation is that it deals with terrorism not only in relation to Northern Ireland. The legislation is more sweeping in its outlook.
  In paragraph 23 of his report Earl Jellicoe states:
  "The most notable trend in this area in Great Britain has been the increasing threat posed by international terrorism."
  That is true. We have not escaped that threat. I believe that the 1980s and 1990s will be characterised by examples of terrorism across national frontiers. I believe that battles, not only in connection with the middle east, but with other parts of the world, will be fought on the streets of London and elsewhere. Therefore, I am delighted that the Government are addressing themselves to that problem.
  Earl Jellicoe mentioned three incidents—the Iranian embassy siege of 1980, the appalling attempted murder of Mr. Argov, the Israeli ambassador, in June 1982, and the hijacking of a Tanzanian airliner to Stansted airport in February 1982. I represent an Essex constituency and I should like to place on record the great debt of gratitude that we all owe to the chief constable of Essex and to the Essex constabulary for the magnificent way in which they handled that hijacking episode. Of course we hope that there will be no further hijackings, but we cannot be sure. I assume that we plan in the expectation that such incidents will take place from time to time and that there will be similar threats.
  If the Government intend that Stansted should be an "ideal" airport to handle such hijacking emergencies. I hope that they will deal kindly with the cost burden which falls upon the county of Essex. The Home Office has not said that that is the strategy, but if it is we should regard hijackings and the cost of dealing with them as a national responsibility instead of expecting Essex to pick up the bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) talked about clause 12(2)(b) and the legislation applying to international terrorism; to terrorist activity connected with Northern Ireland but not with domestic terrorist activity elsewhere. He gave the somewhat spurious example of someone from the Greater Manchester council visiting the Department of the Environment with a gun.
  There is a severe and real danger for our capital city of London and our other large cities and urban conurbations in the potential for terrorists to exploit racial tension. Black and white alike will try to exploit the position.
  Ms. Clare Short: I represent an inner city constituency with a large black population. Will the hon. Gentleman spell out exactly what his innuendo means? Why does he suggest that areas populated by black people are vulnerable to terrorism?
  Mr. Proctor: My views on immigration are well known. The change in the population through immigration has created strains and stresses in our inner city areas. Both black and white alike have been exploited in the past——
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is exploiting the position.
  Mr. Proctor: That is the hon. Gentleman's view. Black and white alike will be exploited in a way that has not happened before. There have been riots among black and white populations in the recent past, sometimes involving Molotov cocktails. Terrorism takes place in Northern Ireland daily, and it is not beyond the wit of man to follow the example set on the other side of St. George's channel. There are those who seek to destroy our society and our democratic institutions. They will use terrorist devices, such as the bomb and the bullet, in inner London and elsewhere.
  I am pleased that the Government have spotted the problem and are concerned about it. The Home Secretary told my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that the Government would wait and consider further before extending the powers in the legislation to domestic terrorism. I believe that it is worth considering whether we should not include that power in the Bill now, rather than wait for terrorist activity to begin and then have to run back to the House to include it in the legislation. If we believe, as I think the Home Secretary believes, that there is a threat of domestic terrorism, it would be sensible to insert the appropriate measure to combat it in the Bill now rather than wait until it happens and then try to plug the gap.
  The Government are right to legislate to stamp out international terrorism. What is the Government's view on those terrorist organisations that have their offices, and sometimes even their headquarters, in London? They indulge in terrorism around the world. Will the Government deal with those organizations——
  Mr. Flannery: Are they in the synagogues?
  Mr. Proctor: Whatever the nature of terrorist activity, the Government have a right to stamp it out. They must ensure that London does not become the headquarters for international terrorism in the rest of the world.
  I support the Government's intention to reconsider the legislation in five years. The next five years will see increasing advances in terrorism and its means and abilities. As democratic politicians we must keep in step, if not ahead, of any terrorist developments. It is right that in five years the House should consider the matter again in the light of what has happened in the intervening period. The legislation may need to be changed or strengthened to put it in context with the nature of terrorism then operating.
  I hope that the House will reject the Opposition amendment and give the Bill its full support.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) portrays a self-fulfilling prophesy. He believes that terrorism will grow during the next five years. There is little evidence to suggest that. Criminality might grow, but that must always be dealt with by criminal law. The hon. Gentleman made the point, which has some truth in it, that it is often necessary to secure a balance between rights and liberties and the need to protect society. It is where that balance is drawn, how it is drawn, and where we put the line that is important. What worries me about the Bill — and it worried me about the original Bill in 1976—is that we are seeking to negate some of our basic democratic rights.
  There was a time when, if someone was incarcerated, there had to be more than simply a suspicion. A person had
  84
  to be brought before a court and a crime had to be proved. Now, as has been shown by the 5,000 people who have been "detained", one does not have to be guilty of an offence. The Home Secretary said earlier that such action might deter others. That is an appalling attack on our fundamental democracy. No one should be incarcerated in any form, for any time, unless he has committed an offence.
  Conservative Members may disagree with me, but once we start down the road that it is in the interests of the state to detain, that will negate the whole of democratic liberty. The basis of our democratic liberty is the right to walk free. This Bill is wrong in the same way as the last Bill was wrong. In the passion of the moment following the Birmingham bombings, we sought to create a system to deal with temporary problems. Society was panicked and an Act of Parliament was passed that negated all our concepts that go back to the Magna Carta. That Bill has been sustained and nurtured year by year. In the interest of expediency, it was kept going a little longer and a little longer. What has happened? There is no evidence to suggest that it has in any way helped or hindered in the fight against terrorism.
  Let it not be said that I in any way support terrorism. Anybody who commits any crime deserves to be punished. A terrorist is nothing more than a criminal. But we cannot beat ideas and dreams by legislation—we can do so only by showing that our ideas and dreams are best. The only way to solve the Irish problem is by understanding the thoughts and dreams of Irishmen. We must find a solution that fits those thoughts and dreams. I speak as a Dublin-born man, coming from a long blood line of Irishmen. We will not find a solution to the Irish problem in this legislation. What we give to one party becomes automatically something that the other side of the argument will always oppose. We cannot solve the problem of Northern Ireland by producing Bills such as the one we are debating.
  The Bill deals not only with Northern Ireland but, as was said earlier, has a secondary side to it. Two organisations are proscribed in the Bill. There is nothing to stop the Minister increasing that number. Where would we start? What would we enlarge the legislation to cover? Who then would become the next terrorist?
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. He may have overlooked clause 14(10) which appears to secure that there must be proceedings in this House if an order is to be made increasing the number of proscribed organisations. I see that the Minister confirms that. That is at any rate some comfort.
  Mr. Bermingham: It is a minor comfort and I accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction. The Government of the day who, perforce, hold a majority can seek to use their majority to say that X is going to be proscribed in addition to what is already in the Bill and that will then become part of the system. I am worried that we are beginning to develop the concept of proscription and banning.
  As I said earlier, ideas are defeated only by better ideas. They are not defeated by proscriptions.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has said twice that ideas can be defeated only by better ideas, but in a democratic society those ideas have to be translated into votes at the ballot box. The plain truth is that the IRA has not managed to translate its ideas

  85
  into votes at the ballot box—in fact, the IRA has been consistently rejected there and the IRA and Irish Republicanism have turned to violence.
  Mr. Bermingham: Let it not be said that I am in any way arguing in favour of the IRA. I am trying not to limit my remarks purely to the IRA. The principles of the Bill go wider than the Irish question— far, far wider. An idea can be beaten by a better idea and that better idea can win at the ballot box.
  Mr. Ross: What happens if the minority does not accept that?
  Mr. Bermingham: We come back to the fundamental principles of democracy. The democracy of our society is that the majority view prevails. The minute one goes down the other track and says that an idea can be beaten by legislation, with proscription, with exlusion, with exile and containment, one begins to negate the principle of democracy. In the explanatory memorandum to the Bill we are told that clause 2
  "makes it an offence for a person to dress, or to display any article, in a public place in such a way as to suggest that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation."
  Clause 2 shows how wide the dangersire becoming. It is an almost Orwellian concept—the thought police. We have started on that road. If one has a badge on one's lapel, for example, a tricolor, it could be thought that one was a supporter of Sinn Fein or an Irish, Fenian or republic-type organisation.
  Mr. Flannery: Or a shamrock.
  Mr. Bermingham: Or a shamrock, as my hon. Friend rightly says. The thought apparently gives rise to an offence—what the prosecutor thinks one was thinking. We have always had in this country the concept of criminal law that in order to commit an offence one has not only to think that one is committing an offence but that one has to do something. This Bill takes us on to the road where the very thought becomes the offence.
  There will always be people who have ideas and who have thoughts, who may not agree with any particular group of people. We must never make it an offence for that thought to be an offence. If we are to have a free and democratic society people have a right to their views and opinions and to their liberty.
  I shall vote against the Bill tonight. I shall vote for the Opposition's reasoned amendment. I shall do so with this thought in mind. If we have a society worth protecting and a society which claims to be democratic and free, we have a right to say what we want. I do not want to be a part of a society in which, for the sake of expediency, it is thought necessary to incarcerate without any good reason because we suspect and believe. I shall not support a Government who wish to bring such legislation before the House. Liberty is a precious thing. We have a duty to fight for and protect it on every occasion. It is being attacked by the Bill.
  7.56 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: As a Member representing a constituency in a part of the United Kingdom where the powers available under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act are most needed, I rise to support the retention of these powers and I recommend them to the House as being vital. If hon. Members were to walk behind coffins as members and
  86
  representatives of the Loyalist community have had to do over the past 12, 13 and 14 years, the House would not need much convincing that such powers are essential. I believe that the Bill needs to be strengthened. I trust that in Committee every change proposed in the Bill will be closely scrutinised.
  There has already been much talk in the debate about the balance between the liberty of the citizen and public safety. The best way to safeguard the United Kingdom community and to allow people to have their civil liberties is to crush terrorism and to allow peace and stability to return to this great kingdom. Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to eradicate terrorism? As long as it is not—I believe from the present policy on security that it is not—the citizens of the United Kingdom will be under a continual threat from terrorism, whether international, the IRA or the INLA.
  Hon. Members have spoken about the length of time that the act has been on the statute book. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) would know a good deal about that from his associations over the past few years. He rode on the back of the CRA to get to his present position. The sooner terrorists are beaten, the sooner such Bills will not be needed. Let us take all-out steps to beat the terrorists.
  Mr. John Hume rose——
  Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Member for Foyle should remember that a person was murdered in Northern Ireland today. It was not one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It was not one of his ilk. It was not one of his people. He happened to be only another Loyalist, only another Protestant. It was a member of the SDLP, Councillor Sweeney, the chairman of Magherafelt district council, who, when Lord Mountbatten was murdered and when 19 British soldiers were blown to bits, laughed and said that he would shed no tears over them. When it was pointed out that many of the soldiers were Roman Catholics and his fellow Church members, that SDLP man said, "But they're not Irish." That is the truth of the situation.
  Mr. Hume: There is absolutely no truth in what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
  Rev. William McCrea: I challenge the hon. Member for Foyle, because it is in the records of Magherafelt district council. It is in the books and on the record for ever. Indeed, that member of the hon. Gentleman's own party said that he was happy for his view to be recorded. Let not the leader wash his hands when things happen that do not suit him. The hands of his party members in my constituency are soiled by their links with terrorist organisations and by their sympathies for the IRA. Let the hon. Gentleman not come to the House and try to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. The people of Ulster know exactly where his party stands.
  The best way to remove the need for the Bill is to remove the terrorist and to destroy the terrorist threat and allow every decent citizen, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic or any other religion, to get on with living in peace and prosperity in our beloved Province.
  But there are exceptional circumstances. Let us not close our eyes to that. Terrorists have a grip of violence on a community in a part of the United Kingdom. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said that the. Bill

  87
  replaces an Act which was brought in after the Birmingham pub bombings when the House and country were in emotional turmoil. Because there are no bombs at the moment in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, he seemed to be saying "Let the rest of the United Kingdom go there. We are all right. We are not suffering. We do not need these measures." I remind the House that it is responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom and for dealing with terrorism, no matter in what part of the United Kingdom it may be taking place.
  I have listened to Opposition Members talk about the rights of those who are brought in. Let me ask a question. What about the rights of Ulster's murdered? What about the rights of a man going to work with a lunch box under his arm—unlike many Republicans who lie in their beds and take every state benefit available? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is the truth. I challenge any hon. Member to prove that I am wrong.
  What about the man on his way to work who is shot down like a dog? What about his wife? What about his children? What about the innocent people who suffer in the United Kingdom? There is no talk about their rights. We do not hear shouts about the rights of the innocent in Ulster. Not at all. But we hear a lot of talk about the rights of the terrorist—the person who perpetrates the acts against innocent people. If the United Kingdom and this Parliament have the sort of twisted mentality that leads them to put all their efforts into defending terrorists instead of defending those who are terrorised, the House has sunk low indeed. But I believe that the House will give a resounding vote in support of the Bill.
  On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I say that there is a genuine desire to do away with the need for such a Bill. I do not want these measures remaining for ever as an Act of Parliament. But let us not close our eyes to reality. Let us not blinker or blind ourselves. People are being murdered and extraordinary measures are needed to deal with the terrorists in our midst.
  I have been dismayed to witness the policy move by the Opposition Front Bench. Of course, there is a new leadership and I suppose that that is the best time to have a shift of policy. But the Opposition now say that they were wrong on the policy that they have supported in the House for years. They talk of draconian measures, but the only changes that have been made in the legislation have weakened the resolve to defeat terrorism instead of strengthening it. Therefore, I cannot understand, by any stretch of the imagination, why Labour Members seem so desirous of having the Bill removed.
  Let me say a word to those who call for further safeguards or seek the scrapping of the original Act. After the Jellicoe report was published, certain safeguards were introduced. The report recommended that legislation of this nature should require periodic full re-enactment by Parliament in addition to annual renewal and that after a lifespan of five years a brand new Bill should be required. That would allow detailed amendments in the light of experience and changing circumstances after each full Parliament and should, therefore, allay genuine fears.
  However, I must state clearly that the safeguards that I ask the House to be most concerned about are those for the ordinary citizen who has nothing to fear from the law, but a lot to fear from the terrorist. All the hon. Members from Northern Ireland who regard themselves as
  88
  constitutional politicians, including the hon. Member for Foyle, know full well that the IRA would shoot down like a dog any person in the Roman Catholic community who did not bow and scrape on the ground to its ideas and philosophies. The IRA would put down such people just as it would put down any Protestant. The IRA does not care who people are or what camp they come from. I say that we must safeguard every citizen in the United Kingdom.
  I am not worried by the Opposition's policy movements. I am sorry that, as a new Member, I do not know the names of all Labour Members. No doubt there are some I would want to forget anyway, but the hon. Lady — I think her name is Ms. Short — is getting very excited. If she wants to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to her.
  Ms. Clare Short: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. After the hon. Gentleman's enormous, amazing emotional outburst, will he let us know whether he is opposed to the use of force and terrorism from all sides in Northern Ireland? Is he opposed to the use of force by Unionist forces in Northern Ireland?
  Rev. William McCrea: I make no apology to the House. Every democratically elected hon. Member must condemn terrorism, from whichever side it comes. I remind the House that there is a threat to the position of the United Kingdom and, in particular, the part that I was elected to represent. I shall certainly do all in my power to oppose the challenge to democracy in Ulster which is centred on the IRA and INLA.
  The Bill is not a Democratic Unionist party measure. It names two organisations—the IRA and the INLA. I did not choose those names.
  Mr. Allen Adams: May I introduce myself to the hon. Gentleman? My name is Adams and, would you believe, I am the hon. Member for Paisley, North. I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments on that.
  You are talking at length about democracy. The basic question that the House wants answered is whether, in your opinion, Ireland is or is not a country. If Ireland is a country, what is the majority view on home rule in Ireland as a whole? If you do not accept Ireland as a whole as being a country, will you give an historical analysis of the situation to explain to us why Ireland is not a country?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hate to intervene, because interventions tend to prevent other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate having the opportunity to do so. However, I want to remind the House that we do not refer to hon. Members by name. The hon. Lady just mentioned is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), and she should be referred to in that way. Similarly, other hon. Members should be referred to by their constituencies. What is more, hon. Members must not accuse the Chair of wanting to do this or that.
  Mr. Adams: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Rev. William McCrea: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for telling me the hon. Lady's constituency.
  I was delighted to hear the intervention of the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) and to learn that he comes from such a sensible constituency. However, I

  89
  am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has the mind of the House. He said that the House wanted to know the answer to his question. I am not sure that it does. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman asked the question on behalf of the House with the knowledge of the mind of the House. However, to reply to his question, I say merely that I and those who elected me are British. We are from British Ulster and we are proud of it. We have nothing to do with the Irish Republic or with any other foreign state. I am proud to be in the House equal to any other citizen who sits on these Benches and who comes from this part of our homeland.
  Mr. Sean Hughes: On several occasions the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has said that he feels himself to be British. That being so, is it right to support a Bill which provides that one part of Britain can have people excluded from it? Does he support the idea that my constituents on Merseyside can be restricted to Merseyside, the Scots to Scotland or the Welsh to Wales?
  Rev. William McCrea: I am delighted to respond to that intervention, because in my concluding remarks I want to address myself to an anomaly in the Bill.
  Many people in Northern Ireland are totally dissatisfied with some of the Bill's provisions. I have in mind especially the one relating to exclusion orders. The effect of the exclusion order is to make Northern Ireland a dumping ground for terrorists. So far, more than 200 people whom the Home Secretary considers to be associated with, or about to be associated with, terrorists have been exported from one part of the United Kingdom to another part — Northern Ireland. If these excluded persons are considered to be a danger to the population on the mainland, how can the Government justify sending them back to Northern Ireland? Presumably it does not matter if they perpetrate violence in Northern Ireland. Are we second-class citizens who do not deserve protection from potential terrorists?
  The majority of the population of Northern Ireland are concerned about that provision in the Bill. If it is argued that there is nowhere else to send them, I suggest that they might be sent to the haven which they profess to love so dearly. Many of them hold and carry Irish passports. Why not send them back to the poverty-stricken country which they are trying to get the rest of us to join? I shall be happy to see them go, and I hope that many of them would contribute to their fares back to that foreign state. This provision ought not to be in the Bill. I trust that when it comes to be examined in Committee proper changes will be made to it.
  No terrorist should be allowed to sleep easily in his bed at night. The state should be a scourge to these evil people. The Bill hardly allows that, but at least it is a start. For that reason, I ask the House to support it.
  8.15 pm
  Ms. Clare Short: I rise, not to speak for long, but to share with the House some information that I have about the origins of the Bill because it is important to take them into account before deciding finally to support the Bill.
  I was working in the Home Office at the time the original Bill was drafted and presented to the House. As we have been reminded, it came rapidly after the bombings in a pub in the centre of Birmingham.
  90
  Late that night I was sitting in the Ministerial. Box listening to the debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. Next to me was the man who drafted the Bill. Repeatedly I turned to him to ask in what way the different provisions would have prevented the Birmingham bombings. Eventually he replied, "You know very well that is not what it is about. We have to appease them. They are after capital punishment. They have to be given something." That was the mood of the House that night, and it was the reason why the Act was passed.
  Now we have the legislation, and we see the House at its worst, capable of justifying any provision by constant use of the word "terrorism". The House is meant to be the Mother of Parliaments, the defender of democracy and the upholder of civil liberties and the rule of law throughout the world. But we hear it use the word "terrorism" to excuse the undermining of any principle of the rule of law. It is used to excuse a system of internal exile and to create our own little Siberia which, a few years ago, we would have thought an intolerable concept within any notion of a country which enjoyed the rule of law. We have a system of detention where people can be held for up to seven days without being told of any charge, without necessarily being charged and without any right to call in a legal representative to defend them.
  The Bill had its origins in that mood. It was not passed with the thought that any real act of terrorism could be prevented. It was a bundle of provisions to appease a mood of fear and anger. I well understand the mood, but it is not good enough as the basis for legislation. It is not good enough to undermine the civil liberties of all the people of the United Kingdom.
  The powers repeated in the Bill are seen as a threat to the Irish community throughout Great Britain. I refer to Irish people who have no connection with any political activities. They fear these provisions because they undermine their liberties and our own, too.
  The Bill is a threat to us all, and we see that now in that our notion of what is a civil liberty and what are reasonable legal provisions is being eroded. We see that in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which was introduced in the last Parliament and is about to be reintroduced. We see similar erosions of civil liberties. We see the rule of law eroded. That, too, questions how long it is right to detain people without charge.
  Many of tonight's speeches have tried to justify an even further erosion of our liberties, but they have not sought to justify the specific powers in the Bill. Hon. Members simply repeat that terrorism is wrong and that measures must be taken against it. They do not explain why these provisions creating these breaches of the rule of law can be justified.
  I am privileged to know that this legislation was introduced originally for the wrong reasons. The desire was to appease the fear that the House would demand the restoration of capital punishment to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. These powers were never justified in themselves.
  The evidence since the introduction of this legislation shows that it is nonsense. If we look at how the powers have been used, we see no justification for them because they have not been a great aid in preventing terrorism. One cannot pretend that that is so. That is simply false. Any decent democrat—anyone who cares for liberty in this country—should look at the evidence and think again,

  91
  and have enough dignity and honour to change his mind. There is nothing wrong in changing one's mind. My party is proud to be capable of doing so.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I understand that in the first half of 1983, 83 people were detained under the Act, 11 were held for more than 48 hours with the permission of the Home Secretary, three were the subjects of exclusion orders and six charged with an offence under the Act. Sixty-seven of the 83 people detained were released.
  In every year except one since the original Bill became law, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of detainees. The number has declined from a peak of 1,067 in 1975. Despite what the previous speaker said, the Act has been working. There is, however, never a time for complacency. The problem has an international dimension which affects our debate today. We face also the problem of the growing trend towards violence in the Western democracies, and the problem of trying to define terrorism. I agree with the previous speaker that to stand up and chant "terrorism" does little to solve the problem. Equally, I feel strongly that when the House intends to restrict the activity of even a single individual — especially when there is to be a restriction of freedom of movement, and detention outside the normal time limit — we need to consider the matter with the utmost gravity, calmness and clarity.
  We have to balance the safety of the public against the rights of the individual. We are talking only about a very small number of very dangerous people, supported in this country by a small number of fanatics and overseas by those who, if they were better informed, would not support terrorism in our islands. The vast majority of people are wholly out of sympathy with terrorism of any kind, at any time and in any place.
  The breadwinners of many families in my constituency are members of the Services. The husbands are often serving in Northern Ireland, and the strain engendered by their daily exposure to terrorism has an appalling effect on family life. It is our duty to make sure that the families at home are not equally exposed. We should do everything we can to restrict terrorism. Internationally, our servicemen are increasingly subject to terrorism in carrying out their peacekeeping tasks. We owe it to them and their families not to lose any resolve tonight and not to change our minds.
  There is another group of people in my constituency who are dedicated to the protection and saving of human life. The work of those people has saved hundreds of lives in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I refer to the Defence Establishment at Porton Down. Those who work there are bound to official secrecy, but no one would be happier than they to see an end to terrorism and conflict. They often work under a cloud of suspicion, and often have to cope with misplaced hysteria; but every terrorist bullet or bomb that kills or maims, or seeks to kill or maim, makes the work of that establishment more important. I speak not from prejudice or hysteria but from experience, having recently visited the establishment and seen the expertise, dedication and high standards which are upheld by all those scientists, doctors and vets. We would be letting them down as well if we failed to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  92
  I have mentioned the international dimension. In January 1977 the United Kingdom signed the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. In our name, Anthony Crosland agreed to disregard the political nature of terrorist crimes for the purposes of extradition. The rights of those accused or convicted of terrorism are not the only human rights. The victims or potential victims of acts of terrorism and of all forms of crime also have rights. I am very disappointed by the failure of the Government of the Irish Republic to sign the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, but we in this country can hold our heads high because of our efforts to combat international terrorism. Terrorists know that they are not safe here, and we must keep it that way.
  The problem is often the definition of terrorism. The trend to resort to violent acts when the views of minorities do not win through in the democratic process is something to which we shall have to address ourselves much more closely in the future. The Institute for the Study of Conflict recently pointed out in a report that the incidence of violence attributable to political motives represents only a small fraction of the total. Today the Home Secretary has accepted the possibility of the need to proscribe other domestic groups. The institute concluded that the potential for terrorism is considerable and remains a challenge to the Western democracies.
  When does civil disobedience become terrorism? The institute has suggested a scale with bombing, hijacking and kidnapping at one end and, at the other end, the occupation of public buildings, protest marches and demonstrations where violence appears only on the fringes, as in France and West Germany. Half way along the scale might appear all acts of mass law-breaking such as the illegal Stonehenge festival and the so-called peace convoy which has progressed from Glastonbury through Stonehenge, Greenham Common and Norwich and is now, by anarchic and antisocial behaviour outside Salisbury, causing considerable distress in my constituency.
  It is important that we set down markers about what we believe to be the right balance. We need to draw a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable forms of demonstration and disagreement in a democracy, and to persuade minorities to use votes rather than bullets. The right to protest must be maintained, but I am increasingly worried by interference from single-issue minority pressure groups in the human rights of the majority. Therefore, it is even more important to draw a very firm line between the acceptable and the unacceptable. That is our duty in this debate, and that is why we must not weaken our resolve or change our minds tonight.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: About a quarter of an hour ago we heard the authentic voice of moderation from Mid-Ulster. It reminded me of the reason for the red lines on the Floor of the Chamber. We all have a place in the cloakroom for keeping our swords. There are little pink ribbons there. There was a time when people came armed to the House of Commons. Thank God the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrae) had no weapons at his disposal tonight. We would have been in a parlous position if his impassioned moderation——
  Rev. William McCrae: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman realises it.
  Mr. Flannery: —had left him with a spear or some other such ancient weapon in his hand
  I welcome the length of this debate. Over the years, I have taken part in all the debates on this subject. They lasted for about an hour and a half and were held late at night. In former days there was a bipartisan policy. At that time the Labour party was so backward that it did not realise how deadly the legislation was. It now realises how deadly this Bill is. Many of us struggled against the previous Bills. Literally only a handfull of us used to vote against this illiberal measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has mentioned, the legislation stemmed from the panic following the bombs in Birmingham.
  Some Conservatives Members and Members of Parliament for Ulster talk as though bombs do not go off in places such as McGurk's bar, and as though a group of masked men did not stop people going to work, or put up barricades against those workers so that they themselves could dominate the struggle to share power. I welcome the fact that we have several hours of debate, because we need time to discuss the most intractable political problem that we face. Some people say that we should crush the terrorists and that that would solve the problem. However, I should like to remind the House of why we are in this mess and how it all began.
  The voice that we heard from the other side of the House was the authentic voice of those who caused the trouble long ago. The minority community in Northern Ireland — the original Irish — was suppressed by the Scottish planters. The English, who had trouble with the Scots, were astute enough to use the Scots against the Irish, because they also had trouble with the Irish. Indeed, I saw the English do the same thing in India. Very similar Acts were introduced to hold down the Indian people. Ultimately, however, there was a withdrawal.
  I notice that the 1974 Act and the subsequent Acts were temporary provisions. That qualification is now being removed. Apparently, the reason is that this Bill is wider than the previous legislation. We have been told by one of those on the Conservative side of the House that there could be trouble. If that hon. Gentleman had managed to get through his speech without saying something about immigrants I, for one, would have expected Big Ben to strike 13. One expects a certain sort of speech from that source.
  The legislation remains draconian. Some people are almost ready to polish their jackboots. However, we in the Labour Party have taken a great leap forward. Once only 12 or 15 of us opposed it, but now the Labour Party believes again in a united Ireland. It will vote against this draconian measure. We believe that ordinary criminal law is quite sufficient to deal with the terrible problems. Most of us face problems in a reasonable manner. Most people are against any form of terrorism, whatever its source. However, some voices, which are raised so fiercely and in a passionate and headstrong manner, fuel the terrorists.
  Some people approach this terrible problem in a sectarian manner, thus showing that they have learnt nothing from the dreadful struggle that has led to the renewal of this legislation. A few hon. Members attended the previous renewal debates, and a few attend now. Most people want to speak. The problem is larger now. More people realise that this legislation will nit do the slightest good after it has been passed tonight. There will still be
  94
  politics, the trouble will still occur and we shall still be talking, as we have done this afternoon, of people being put into the Maze prison and trying to escape.
  Our problems need political solutions that demand a subtlety and an intensity of thought, not voices that fuel the flames and cause even deeper trouble when they are published in the newspapers. The Labour Party believes that we are discussing this problem in a more rational and broader manner.
  Exclusion orders are draconian, terrible and unjust in every way. The authentic voice of moderation, which we heard earlier, used an expression to which I draw attention. That voice said that Ulster was becoming a jumping ground for terrorists. That apparently simple statement assumes that anybody who is excluded is a terrorist when there has been no trial of any kind. This will intensify our problems and reveal the sectarianism that caused them. Democracy will solve our problems. If one side extends democracy to the other—this has not occurred so far— we shall be well on the way towards solving our problems.
  It is appalling that it is assumed that everybody who is excluded is a de facto terrorist when there has been no judge or jury. The Government assume such people are terrorists. This legislation inevitably produced the nightmare of the "supergrasses". It was as inevitable as night following day that the frustration felt through not solving the problem politically would result in a violation of natural and legal justice in Northern Ireland. The legislation will seem to produce quiescence for a short time but it will inevitably bring the terrorists more into play, especially those on the minority side. They will say that this is an example of British justice wherein one man who is a confessed murderer can go before a court and put other men on trial. This will intensify the problem.
  This Bill will contribute towards the failure to solve political problems and the Government will then have recourse to so-called solutions which will not do anything. The mentality that produced this Bill is the same as that which produced the "supergrasses" and violated natural and legal justice.
  Successive Governments have grossly underestimated the political problem that we face. However, we are now beginning to come to grips with it. I invite Conservative Members to consider the issue more profoundly and in a less sectarian way.
  Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flannery: No, not after what we heard from the hon. Gentlemam earlier. Besides, other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Rev. William McCrea: That is the hon. Gentleman's democracy.
  Mr. Flannery: To the extent that we underestimate the problem, we shall renew Acts of Parliament such as this year after year. The melancholy renewal will go on 10 or 20 years from now because of our failure to solve the political problem that confronts us.
  As I have said many times before, terrorist leaders are not just thugs and gangsters. Some of them are, but many are political animals who are deeply convinced that they are fighting for a cause. It is far more difficult to defeat someone who believes that he is fighting for a just cause. In so far as we insist on their being thugs and gangsters

  95
  and fail to analyse the politics of the conflict, we shall fail to solve the problem. A solution would be easier if terrorist leaders were all thugs and gangsters. We could then crush them easily, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster wishes. However, the solution is more complex, subtle and lies more deeply than that. The problem is political and it requires a political solution.
  The Bill is so illiberal that it deepens the problem. Increasing numbers of people now recognise that. That recognition will be shown in the Division Lobby tonight. We shall vote against this Bill in greater numbers than ever before.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My speech will be mainly practical and technical. I do not aspire to the emotional heights of either my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) or the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery).
  I congratulate Lord Jellicoe on his report. It is excellent. I have studied it carefully. I have corresponded with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about some of the recommendations. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) I shall quote one of Lord Jellicoe's conclusions with regard to the Bill, based on his studies and interviews. At paragraph 56 he said that the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976
  "has led to the charging and subsequent conviction of a large number of people guilty of very serious criminal offences connected with terrorism, which in many cases would not and could not have resulted from arrests under other powers."
  Lord Jellicoe's conclusion is not to be lightly dismissed. The Act has helped in the conviction of terrorists.
  I should like to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has arrived at a felicitous moment, and thank him warmly for the care and attention that he has given to some of the points that I have put to the Home Office on behalf of the Police Federation. I am grateful to him. In general, it is satisfied with his conclusions.
  In the 20 years during which I have been a Member of Parliament, I have made something of a study of terrorism. I am in no sense an expert and I would always bow to the superior knowledge of Ministers— it is based on the much greater information that is available to them. But I have reached two conclusions which I should like to share with my right hon. and learned Friend. The first is baleful. There is likely to be more rather than less terrorism both in the world as a whole, and in Great Britain. Sadly, many more innocent people will be killed by terrorists. Many of our leaders will risk assassination. I say this because of the advance of technology. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the man who shot him had to stand on a building about 200 yards from him to draw a direct line of sight. Today, such an assassination can easily take place with one of the precision-guided missiles, with which the world is littered and which frequently are stolen from the armies of the East or the West. It is technically possible for such an assassination to be carried out at a great distance and with far less risk to the terrorist.
  Similarly, we now have fiendish devices which make it possible to plant a bomb three or six months in advance of its detonation by remote control. Right hon. and hon.
  96
  Members should visualise the possibility of such a device being planted, for example, at the Cenotaph between three and six months before 11 November, a device capable of detonation at a long distance but almost impossible to detect. In short, terrorism is a scourge which I fear will get worse.
  My second conclusion is this. If a state, its Parliament and Government do not provide protection for ordinary people, they will take the law into their own hands to provide that protection for themselves. That is precisely the pattern of events in Northern Ireland. Unchecked terrorism breeds counter terrorism. Therefore, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, our duty is to strike the balance between maintaining public safety on the one hand and preserving individual rights and freedoms on the other — between providing the law-abiding majority with the security to which they are entitled, and avoiding the trap of overreaction or repression, which may serve the terrorist's ends by undermining democratic values which Governments, in free societies, exist to uphold. That is the dilemma facing the Government and the police.
  The police are well aware that people in free societies are so sensitive to charges of repression that they, the police and security services, must not be seen to overreact. Yet their first duty and most important social service is to protect the citizens from threats to their lives and safety. I use this definition of the balance we must strike on good advice. My words are the words just used by Sir Kenneth Newman when he explained to the European Atlantic group the balance that he seeks to strike when maintaining the liberties and freedoms of London in the face of terrorist attack.
  I shall skate over most of the Bill quickly because much of it is a replay of the previous Act. I welcome the broad changes that the Home Secretary made, and I am sure that he is right to consider past Acts against international terrorists, and not solely terrorists from Northern Ireland who might threaten our society. The quarrels of Greek and Turk, and of Arab and Jew can explode in the streets of London. The time has come when no Government who care for the peace of their people can fail to have the power to exclude those who would take terrorist actions against those people. I also welcome the other changes in the Bill.
  Alongside the legislation that my right hon. and learned Friend rightly seeks, the prevention of terrorism requires several administrative actions. The first of those relates to intelligence about terrorist organisations. If terrorism is to be contained, we must be able more effectively to collect, collate, analyse and make use of advance information in depth about the nature of terrorist agencies, their ideological background, their leadership and its motivation, their finances, communications, weapons and internal disciplinary arrangements. Above all, we need to know more—much more than we do at present—about their international ramifications.
  I emphasise the latter point because there can no longer be any doubt that terrorists in one country assist terrorists in other countries. Weapons stolen from a Swiss army depot have turned up in the hands of terrorists as diverse as the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof gang and certain factions of the PLO. PLO training camps in Yemen have been used to familiarise European terrorists with automatic weapons and land mines, and there is circumstantial evidence—I put it no higher than that—that the IRA has

  97
  benefited from connections with other terrorist organisations in Europe and perhaps in north Africa. Nor can the possibility be excluded—I choose my words carefully— that Soviet and some East European stare security services from time to time may have used terrorist organisations in other countries to assist them in their efforts to damage Western interests.
  I should also mention the existence of the paid professional assassin—the Jackal, to use a name from contemporary fiction. Such men are available for terrorist hire. They may be few or many — I have no way of knowing—but they can and do operate internationally. They are by no means confined to one cause with one set of targets. Provided that the money is right and the risks are not too great, the Jackal will go anywhere.
  I mention the international dimension solely to emphasise my point about the need for better intelligence and more advance information and background about every terrorist agency that might be used to attack us. It is easy to say, but exceedingly difficult — perhaps impossible—to achieve this in real life; but we must do better. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend will take the time—he does not have much—to assure himself, and therefore the House, that our intelligence agencies are well enough staffed and resourced to gather all the terrorist intelligence that is available. I hope that they are not so over-concentrated on the Soviet threat—although I do not minimise it—as to be unable to devote sufficient time and effort to the non-Soviet terrorist threat outside as well as inside Northern Ireland. I also ask my right hon. and learned Friend to satisfy himself that our British system of collating and analysing the copious data that is obtained about terrorism is the best available. Do we apply the most effective methods of operational research? Do we have the most efficient technology, such as computers, to assess intelligence material and to relate it to the practicalities of the threat that we face?
  Is my right hon. Friend content with the state of international intelligence sharing about terrorism? I am aware of the arrangements that have been worked out with European Governments, and I have had some experience of the collaboration between the Americans and ourselves that has assisted greatly in tackling some aspects of the IRA in recent years. However, with the technical facilities of international communication improving so dramatically, the Government need to be confident that we are getting, as well as giving, all the relevant data that bear on terrorist threats. How does my right hon. Friend judge the quality of international intelligence sharing?
  The second area of administrative action that I hope my right hon. Friend will bring forward as a counterpart to this necessary legislation is action to make it harder for terrorists and criminals of all kinds to get hold of weapons. The other day, not half a mile from this House and only about 200 yards from Buckingham Palace, armed police officers from the anti-terrorist squad arrested a man with a large supply of guns and ammunition in Belgravia. The guns included two Smith and Wesson revolvers, a magnum gun, a magnum colt, three magazines, a Churchill rifle and 300 rounds of ammunition. The man had no firearms certificate. He was able to persuade the court, and, I think, the police, that he had made a mistake. He intended this arsenal to be transferred to one of his friends overseas, and was able to persuade the court that he was
  98
  "about to apply for a firearms export certificate".
  I accept that. That was the view of the court, and as my right hon. Friend knows, I always accept the verdicts of British juries.
  I merely refer to that case because there has been a rapid increase in the number of weapons available in this country to those who would use them for no good purpose. Sadly, the world is littered with surplus firearms from the NATO and Warsaw Pact armies. The world is also stuffed with surplus ammunition which can be bought on any black market. I understand the heavy task in front of my right hon. Friend, but through the Minister of State I hope that he will assure us that he will satisfy himself, as a new Home Secretary, that the arrangements made for the custody of weapons by the British Armed Forces and police are up to date and burglar proof.
  I end with a cautionary tale. The other day, as we all know so well, some fanatic terrorist in Beirut drove an army lorry full of explosives to the place where the American marines were sleeping and another drove a similar lorry to the place where the French were sleeping. The result was close to 200 dead. My fear is that terrorists are imitative. I do not believe that is is likely for such an incident to have taken place in Northern Ireland, because such is now the experience of the RUC and the British Army that the preparedness of their barracks would make it virtually impossible for any such driver to do so. Nonetheless, many of our depots in Great Britain could be vulnerable. I ask my hon. Friend to satisfy himself that such a thing could not happen here.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: We would do well to remind ourselves that this is a Bill devoted to the prevention of terrorism. Terrorism is no more nor less than seeking to achieve political ends by the use of violence.
  A number of Labour Members have referred to political ideas. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred to dreams. No one is opposed to dreams or political ideas — the opposition is towards using violence to achieve those ends. Unless Parliament prevents the use of violence to achieve political ends, the whole fabric of democracy is at risk.
  During the debate we have heard a number of clearly absurd assumptions about the Bill from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) suggested that the Bill challenged the right of silence. If she were to look at paragraph 217 on page 84 of Lord Jellicoe's report she would see that a case is reported there, from the High Court in Scotland, which shows that there is no intention that an individual should be forced to incriminate himself as a consequence of the Bill. The right of silence for an individual is still sacrosanct.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to the arbitrary arrest of innocent individuals. However, there is nothing arbitrary about the powers of arrest under clause 12. There have to be reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has taken place. If there are no reasonable grounds for that suspicion, the prerogative of habeas corpus will lie.
  We have also heard criticism of the exclusion order, about which Lord Jellicoe says that
  "its value is difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way."
  He goes on to make a conclusion that is worth remembering. He says:

  99
  "I conclude, in effect, that the exclusion of some people under these powers has materially contributed to public safety in the United Kingdom and that this could not have been achieved through the normal criminal process."
  Labour Members would do well to dwell on the fact that, although these powers may be exceptional, they are not as draconian as they would have us believe. I have listened to all of the debate and I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why the Opposition have supported the Prevention of Terrorism Act, but have suddenly changed their minds over the Bill.
  Lord Jellicoe rightly says that exceptional powers require exceptional safeguards. The difficulty is that most of the exceptional powers are in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 and most of the exceptional safeguards require administrative or other action. In paragraph 9 Lord Jellicoe suggests that
  "The police throughout the United Kingdom should be reminded by the appropriate Secretary of State that the power of arrest under section 12 should be exercised only where the use of no other power is appropriate to the end sought."
  There are further references in paragraphs 17 and 18 to the Home Office draft code relating to the treatment of prisoners in police custody, and there are references in paragraph 19 to the RUC code.
  There is also that long and somewhat complex provision, which will have to be contained within the statutory instrument, about the hours and times of detaining individuals. Will the Home Secretary make available in the Library something on Lord Jellicoe's conclusions about the administrative action and on whether the Government intend to carry them out, and in what way if they do so? Otherwise, the House has no real opportunity to scrutinise the exceptional safeguards that Jellicoe has put into his report, most of which rely on administrative action rather than statutory provision.
  The Bill must be supported by the whole House.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: The central theme of speeches from the Opposition Benches has been that the problem is a lack of evidence that the Bill is necessary and that it is a major invasion and infringement of our civil liberties. That has been our central theme.
  It has been my fear for many years that we tend to respond to essentially political problems by attempting to clamp down on civil liberties in the hope that by dealing with the symptoms of political problems somehow the political problems will resolve themselves. The evidence for that is not good. It is not sufficient, as the Home Secretary and a number of Conservative Members have tried to do at times, simply to blame previous Administrations and ask, "Why have you changed your mind?" There are many arguments against that, not least that if we did not change our mind on the basis of the evidence before us that has been growing year by year and progressively becoming more powerful—I shall come to this matter in greater detail later—we should be guilty of betraying the purposes of this House.
  I should also like to remind the Home Secretary and other Conservative Members that we have never yet had a study into whether the Act is effective. I know, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) knows, that Lord Jellicoe formed the opinion that it was necessary and effective.
  100
  However, that is not a detailed inquiry. That is not evidence for and against. I shall address some of my remarks to the matter tonight. So let us hear no more of this nonsense that it is not appropriate to have a different view of the matter over the years.
  Overall, the effect of the erosion of civil liberties in this country is frightening. I remember the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974, and I understand why people both here and outside not only wanted legislation of this nature but wanted to go further. The feelings were deep and angry, and understandably so. However, the job of this House is to protect civil liberties.
  My overriding concern for many years—it has been expressed by many people — is that democracies throughout history are rarely destroyed overnight. It is a slow but steady erosion of civil liberties and civil rights, to which people have become accustomed over the years. Each erosion seems reasonable. Some dramatic act has taken place, like the Birmingham pub bombings, and it has seemed reasonable to take action, but at the end of the day people realise that the liberties to which they have been used over many years are not there to defend one. Then it requires only a major crisis. When societies drift into major crises they are often about economics or war, and the economics can be about mass unemployment or high inflation. Those are the times when societies get into trouble. It is then, more than at any other time, that people need the protection of civil rights that have been built up over the years. If those rights are no longer there to defend the people it is no good if hon. Members or anyone else complain when the man of iron takes over. That is how it happens in history, and let no one believe that democracy is safe unless people are alert to that danger. It is the duty of every person in this House, of whichever party, to be alert to that danger, and one of my criticisms of many of the speeches that we have heard tonight from the Conservative Benches is that there has not been significant evidence that they are alert to that danger.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not the hon. Gentleman also agree that the iron men, as he puts it, have more frequently come to power on the back of the breakdown of law and order, of terrorism unchecked, and that that, more than anything else, has been the source of dictatorship?
  Mr. Soley: What the hon. Gentleman should look at, and look at in more depth—I shall comment on some of his remarks in a moment, if I have time—is the action that leads up to that period, before the breakdown in law and order. I shall come to that in a moment. If one does not examine that aspect, it becomes too late to take the action that is needed.
  The Tory party is historically weak in protecting civil liberties. It has always been a reluctant and resentful convert — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] — to democratic procedures. Throughout history it has rejected many extensions of the franchise, and it has resented and tried to repel other civil liberties that we in this country have fought for. The Tory party prefers what I shall describe as benign authoritarianism — and sometimes it is not so benign. We witness that from time to time in the stage-managed conferences with the deferential political eunuchs engaging in standing ovations to order.
  When Lord Jellicoe says that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should stay, he gives four reasons. He said,

  101
  first, that it must be effective; secondly, that the aims cannot be achieved by a general law; thirdly, that it must not be unacceptable to civil liberties; and, fourthly, that there must be safeguards against abuse. I am worried, as Conservative Members rarely address themselves to those matters.
  The right hon. Member for Spelthome (Sir H. Atkins), who has special knowledge of Northern Ireland, is anxious that the word "political" should be dropped from the definition of terrorism. Of course, it could be dropped, but the giveaway is in the Act because ministerial and not judicial power determines whether a person is detained or excluded. Whether abroad or in this country it is a political act if the person charged can say that he was detained on the direct instructions of the Secretary of State with no judicial involvement whatever. Simply removing one word from the Bill cannot remove the political nature of the act.
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: I was referring to the case of a man against whom a warrant exists for his arrest for committing murder. I suppose that that offence can be said to be political, but I do not think that it is. I object to his being able to go to the courts in his own country and say that his motive was political and therefore the crime was different.
  Mr. Soley: That is precisely my point. One can say exactly the same on the basis of the Bill regardless of whether the word "political" appears because the detentions and exclusions will be on ministerial and not judicial decisions. In other words, we know that the act is political and we must face up to its implications in terms of our civil liberties and law.
  I am not surprised that the Liberal party supported the Bill. However, I am a little worried that Liberal Members did not stay to see the argument through. They told us that they would light the Bill clause by clause and then said that they would support it. That is a curious position.
  The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made a very encouraging maiden speech and I congratulate him on it. Most of us were sitting of the edges of our seats. At one time I thought that not only was he making a maiden speech but that he would criticise his own Government on the Bill. He correctly pointed out that this was an erosion of habeas corpus, a matter dear to his heart. He is quite right to say that and I respect him for it. I hope that in time we shall encourage him to firm up on that belief and take his convictions into the Lobby with us. If he needs any advice on that subject I shall gladly help him. I also congratulate him on the brevity of his speech, which was impressive.
  I have referred to the erosion of civil liberties. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) gave the best example. He said that we should return to selective internment. That is the problem. There are umpteen arguments that can be put forward to prevent terrorism and the erosion of civil liberties.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: In my opinion, there would have been less erosion in doing that than in resorting to exclusion.
  Mr. Soley: I believe that in the end we would have internment and a Prevention of Terrorism Act as well. The argument is always that we must have more and more power to defeat terrorism because we have failed to face the political arguments that underlie it.
  102
  The hon. Member for Epping Forest said that the provision is turning Northern Ireland into a dustbin for terrorists. The feeling in Northern Ireland about this matter is immensely strong. Not only has the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights rightly condemned this, but many other people do not see why it is all right for terrorists to walk the streets of Belfast but not all right for them to do so in Britain. Misunderstandings occur as to whether we have indentified terrorists, but, having been labelled as such by the exclusion orders, they are seen in that light by the people of Northern Ireland.
  In the light of the Government's policy on Northern Ireland, it is significant that they are still prepared to treat Northern Ireland in a different manner from the rest of the United Kingdom — and not only in this respect. The Government go further by introducing embarkation cards for the island of Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) brought in the racial factor by innuendo. He will know my views about racialism. He forgot to mention that one of the main triggers in the inner city riots to which he referred was the method and style of policing. If we do not carry the people with us in policing methods, we shall lose their support. At best we shall experience civil disorder of the type that he described and at worst paramilitary grouping of the type experienced in Northern Ireland. We must take the people with us if we want to defeat terrorism.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) made an impassioned speech. Although we all respect the problems that face hon. Members from Northern Ireland, they do not have a monopoly of concern about what happens there. I have been involved in Northern Ireland matters in the House since 1980. Part of my reason was that concern. The hon. Gentleman's care and concern would be more convincing if he had been able to condemn paramilitary activity from both sides without prompting from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Recognition of what is happening on both sides of the sectarian divide is necessary.
  I have talked about the slow erosion of civil liberties. I am talking not only of the prevention of terrorism measures and the emergency provisions, but of the increased powers of the police and immigration officers. We must not forget that the legislation applies to immigration officers. I am talking about searches in the Houses of Parliament and the extension of the powers of security guards, which seem reasonable in their own right, but they undermine our civil liberties. I understand how they came about in the 1960s and 1970s, but unless we take a long-term view of what is happening, we shall end up without any of the civil liberties that we have been used to and for which we have fought so hard.
  Both Shackleton and Jellicoe say that they recognise the dangers to civil liberties but believe that terrorism makes that necessary. We must ask the central question. Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that the Act has been successful? It is not in the statistics. It is in the assumption that covert intelligence-gathering will be done by people, some of whom may have had links, knowingly or unknowingly, with terrorism. Jellicoe does me the honour of using my argument on pages 4 and 5 of the report. The words that he uses bear a marked similarity to my written evidence. The argument is that the terrorist's aims, whether in Northern Ireland or in a number of other

  103
  places, is normally to force the Government into increasingly repressive legislation particularly against those whom the terrorist seeks to represent. That is a crucial part of the argument.
  The philosophy is not new. It goes back many hundreds of years. It has been around in other societies at other times. It was emphasised by Carlos Marighella in writings in the 1950s and 1960s. Many terrorist writings, particularly in relation to the IRA, take their ideas and beliefs from that source. It is worth reading about the aims of terrorism. Carlos Marighella says that:
  "The armed forces … are mobilised and undertake routine police functions. Even so they find no way to halt guerilla operations, nor to wipe out the revolutionary organisation."
  The aim is to make the Government enforce curfews, road blocks, searches and mass arrests. The legislation encourages the arrest of innocent people. I wish to emphasise the evidence given by General Richard Clutterbuck, who said about the terrorist
  "like all revolutionaries he regards his chief enemy as the liberal reformer."
  He believes that the enemy of the paramilitary terrorists is the liberal reformer who protects and defends civil rights.
  It is difficult to get the balance right. The Home Secretary spoke about that. However, there are good indications of the level of success. Both Lord Jellicoe and the Home Secretary failed to address themselves to that. I hope that the Minister will do so when he replies. What are the implications? First, there is the attitude of those among whom the terrorists seek to operate. We have convincing evidence that the Irish people feel that they are the targets for the legislation. We know from the backgrounds of those who have been picked up that they are the targets. We are, therefore, alienating them. Their alienation takes different forms. First, it may be passive, in that those who do not actively support terrorist actions nevertheless refuse to co-operate effectively with the security forces.
  Secondly, aggrieved people may provide cover for terrorist activities. Thirdly, there may be a willingness to join a terrorist group or one of its front organisations.
  There is considerable evidence that that has been happening. Convictions in the Diplock courts show that the majority of offenders are under 25. Most of them have not been convicted before. The evidence is strong that the paramilitary groups on the Republican side are well able to recruit. They argue strongly that those whom they seek to represent have no hope with democratic politics and that there is no hope of their civil rights being defended by the House of Commons. They quote as an example the Prevention or Terrorism Act. It is not the guilty who are picked up but their friends and relatives. A general feeling is encouraged that people cannot trust the police, the security forces or the British Government and at the end of the day the only people who will fight for them are the paramilitary groups on the Republican side.
  The statistics show that 5,555 people were arrested between 24 November 1974 and 31 December 1982 under the Act. Of those, 88 per cent. were released without charge. Only 2.1 per cent. were charged with offences under the Act. That says something about Lord Jellicoe's view that general laws should be used to deal with certain cases. The purpose of the Act is to collect information — it has nothing to do with convicting terrorists. The
  104
  Act's purpose is to cross-examine people about other people and so gain information. Only 1.5 per cent. are found guilty under the Act. Yet we justify an Act that strikes at the very basis of our civil liberties.
  We have legislation — and further legislation now before us—that is failing in its purpose. To some extent it is assisting the paramilitary groups. It offends against the traditions of British democracy.
  In paragraph 70 of the report, Lord Jellicoe states
  "the decision whether to extend detention depends on criteria which are not susceptible of judicial assessment."
  In other words, he is saying clearly, and without any attempt to conceal it—it is to his credit that he does not want to conceal it — that it is a political and not a judicial action. If we took that to be the Sakharov case, the distinction is not great. The Russians went in for exclusion on a basis rather different from ours. They justified it on political grounds. We are now doing exactly the same. The reasons may be different but the principle is precisely the same. Reference was made earlier to those arrested in Zimbabwe and then, incidentally, rearrested.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend because he is making an important speech, but is it right for the Home Secretary to sit looking at something to do with football, which has nothing to do with the business of the House? The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly is not listening to the speeches being made. There has always been a clear understanding in the House that hon. Members, especially Ministers, should be courteous to each other.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order on which I need to rule.
  Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I suspect that the Home Secretary's concern about civil liberties has never been so great that he would listen to detailed arguments of this type. That is evidenced in some of the legislation that he is prepared to bring forward. The arguments about the Act are detailed and should be dealt with seriously. I would be encouraged if the Home Secretary would do that.
  Lord Jellicoe pointed out that we are involved in political legislation. We are saying that there are now acts which should no longer be dealt with by the judiciary but by Ministers of State. In the Zimbabwe case those involved were rearrested after having been found not guilty. Under the present Act a person was found not guilty by the court but was immediately subject to an exclusion order. If we are to be serious about our protection of civil liberties, we should look to that aspect because we have lost the principle. The reasons may be different and there may be different emphasis on those reasons, but the principle has been lost. That is what makes the Act such a dangerous one.
  I ask hon. Members to consider, regardless of their political affiliations, what I am about to say. If during the 1950s or 1960s someone had come to Britain and predicted that in a few years' time Britain would be going in for internal exile in the form of exclusion orders from one part of the United Kingdom to another—which we have not had, as Sam Silkin said when he was Attorney-General, since the Middle Ages — giving no reasons to the person, giving him no right to know the evidence against him, giving no right to cross-examine those who had

  105
  collected the evidence, giving no right to a trial or any public or formal hearing, giving no right to know on what basis any representation had been successful or unsuccessful either before, during or alter the exclusion, giving no right of appeal to a court or tribunal, he would have been scoffed at. In addition to this picture of a futuristic Britain painted perhaps by an hon. Member in 1950s or 1960s, if he had gone on to say that this power would be given not only to the police but to immigration officers, that they would have the power to detain for up to seven days without charge and perhaps without the suspect being able to see a solicitor or friends and relatives, and that the suspect could be finger-printed and those fingerprints and records could be kept on file even though no charge was laid, again, would he not have been scoffed at? People would have said that that was not a picture of Britain in a few years' time but a picture of an authoritarian state. But that is Britain in the 1970s and 1980s. The Bill is intensely dangerous and the House has a duty in this matter going far beyond party loyalty and going deep into the traditions and beliefs of the House that have been hard fought for over the years.
  Civil liberties are essential to any democracy. Tonight, we are eroding them yet again. The term "temporary" has been taken out of the title of the Bill. We started off reviewing the original Act every six months. The period was then extended to 12 months. Now it is five years. We shall be re-enacting it in five years' time unless we have the wit to repeal it, as I hope we shall.
  On the record of the past 10 or 15 years, we shall continue on the track that we have been following. The Opposition say that it is time to look again and to recognise that we cannot beat terrorism by eroding the civil liberties which are the target of the terrorists' attack. If we are true to that and true to our traditions and beliefs in the House, we shall vote against the Bill.
  9.30 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): We have had a very interesting debate and I am grateful to all those who have made constructive contributions. I shall do my best to reply to the various points made, but it might he appropriate if I made one or two general points first.
  What happened in Beirut yesterday is a dreadful reminder of the foul and bestial deeds that twisted people with twisted minds are prepared to perpetrate for political ends. Of course, we should never let our horror at such events warp our judgment. In a free society such as ours we should always be on our guard lest in our determination to beat the bombers we do their job for them and destroy freedom itself.
  On the other hand, few would deny that sometimes individual rights have to be curtailed to protect more fundamental rights and to protect the slate itself. Few would deny that sometimes there is a place for exceptional powers. A balance has to be struck between the need to protect the public on the one hand and the need to safeguard the rights and freedom of the individual on the other.
  I think that we have found the right balance in the Bill. While its primary purpose is the protection of the public from the violence of terrorist fanatics, it also seeks to ensure that those who are subject to exceptional powers are fairly and justly treated.
  106
  I emphasise, because it seems to have been forgotten during the debate, that the Bill gives far more protection to those who might be detained or made subject to exclusion orders than the Opposition apparently thought necessary when they were in office and introduced the original measures.
  I do not think that I shall be alone in saying that the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was extraordinary. It might be better to draw a veil over it. I am sorry that he was out of the Chamber when the debate came to its drarnatic climax. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—he has been the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend until now, though I wonder whether he still will be—tried to come to the right hon. Gentleman's rescue by saying that we all had to recognise that obviously the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not believe a word of what he was saying, but he had to say it because of a decision made by the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber at the time, but I can tell him that that is precisely what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. and learned Gentleman has perverted the truth. He has used a form of words which convey the very opposite of what I said. He should apologise.
  Mr. Waddington: I shall do better than that. I shall read Hansard tomorrow, and I ask the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to read it as well.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook got himself into a complete tangle, and he did that as a result of trying to be too subtle by half. He picked out a few words at the beginning of paragraph 55 of the Jellicoe report and constructed round them the proposition that Lord Jellicoe himself had doubted the value of these powers of arrest and detention. It took only a few moments to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the conclusions reached by Lord Jellicoe when he studied the matter.
  In paragraph 62 the noble Lord states quite categorically:
  "I believe that the 48-hour-plus-five-days power under section 12 should remain."
  In paragraph 65 he goes on to say that
  "if the power of extended detention were abolished, the police both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland would be seriously handicapped in dealing with terrorists."—
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook latched on to the first sentence of paragraph 55 and hoped that we would all close our eyes to what ensued in the following paragraphs.
  The right hon. Gentleman then pointed to the fact that a large number of people who had been made subject to exclusion orders had not in the event been charged. One of the objects of the power is to exclude suspected terrorists who cannot be prosecuted because the evidence against them is of such a delicate nature that it cannot be presented in court, not least because to reveal it to the accused would almost certainly be to reveal to him the source of the information and put at risk the life of the person concerned.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that 88 per cent. of those detained were not charged. He did not mention that a very large proportion of those detained were detained under port powers. He ignored entirely paragraph 139 of the report in which Lord Jellicoe said that the primary purpose of the port powers was

  107
  "to deter those involved in terrorism from attempting to enter a particular territory, by demonstrating that they are likely to be caught. The value of a deterrent power is not demonstrated by the numbers apprehended."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) deserves the thanks of the House for directing our attention to a large number of extremely important matters. He asked whether it was right that the clause 12 powers were not to extend to other than Northern Ireland or international terrorism. That is right. The reason why that is in the Bill is that Lord Jellicoe concluded that no domestic group had so far been seen as posing a threat to public safety which was at all comparable to that posed by Irish or international groups. The theme of the Bill is to go no further than was proposed by Lord Jellicoe. We believe that Lord Jellicoe has got the balance right and that we should not take powers unless they are essential.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said that exclusion orders could not be made in respect of international terrorism. Again he was entirely right. The reason for that is again contained in the Jellicoe report. We consider that there are adequate powers under the Immigration Act and particularly in section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 to deport someone on the ground that his presence in this country is not conducive to the public good.
  Paragraph 41 of the report indicates that, at present, an extension of detention does not have to be made in writing under the Secretary of State's own hand. My right hon. Friend was quite right to say that it would be wrong if that a power as important as this was not exercised by the Secretary of State himself. I am glad to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that we accept the recommendation made by Lord Jellicoe at paragraph 73 of the report.
  My right hon. Friend said that he was concerned about the definition of terrorism in clause 14(1) and its effect on extradition proceedings. I have to tell him that that definition has stood the test of time and has not been exploited in the courts to undermine the effectiveness of earlier Acts. Furthermore, I believe that the definition in the Bill can make little or no impact on extradition cases, as such cases involve the allegation of a specific offence.
  The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made an interesting speech. He told us that the Liberal party supports the need for the Bill but will seek to make changes in Committee. We will await news of those proposed changes with interest. The hon. Member mentioned two of them in his speech. He said that he would like the Act to have a life of three rather than five years, and that he would like exclusion orders to last for two years rather than three. As the Bill reduces the life of exclusion orders from 20 years to three years, it may be considered that in his second point the hon. Gentleman is merely nit-picking and trying to find a battlefield where none exists. He says that the Liberal party does not like the idea of 20 years. He says that it does not like three years either, but that it would settle for two.
  The hon. Gentleman expressed disappointment that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill had not had its First Reading before this debate. There is nothing sinister in that. Although I must not disclose in detail the terms of that Bill, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to carry out the recommendations contained in paragraphs 17, 21, 22, 23 and 25 of Lord Jellicoe's report.
  108
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) on his eloquent speech. It was a pleasure to listen to him. He was right to remind us that any erosion of personal liberty can be justified only by exceptional circumstances. He had obviously tried to strike a balance in his own mind—as every Member of this House must try to do—before deciding to support the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that there can be good intelligence without the existence of admissible evidence. How right he was. There can be good intelligence that cannot be revealed to the suspect without imperilling the safety of others.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said that Ulster should not be used as a dustbin for terrorists. He referred to the recent report of the Northern Ireland Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, according to which the exclusion powers were being used to discriminate against the people of Northern Ireland. We must get this absolutely clear.
  I agree that under these powers more people are excluded from Britain than from Northern Ireland. However, terrorist attacks in Britain inevitably tend to be committed by people who have travelled here from Ireland, while those that take place in Northern Ireland tend to be committed by those already living there, or by those who have come over the border from the South.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) made an interesting speech in which she made quite clear her objection to the power of proscription, as, indeed, did the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I quite understand what both of them had to say but, with respect, they both tended to ignore the affront that would be caused to others if people could once again flaunt their support for terrorist causes.
  The hon. Member for Peckham seemed to ignore the fact that clause 14(10) requires an affirmative resolution of the House before any additional body can be added to the list of proscribed organisations in the schedule. At one point she seemed to suggest that clause 11 made it an offence for a person to refuse to incriminate himself. That is not so. Clause 11 states:
  "If a person who has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance—
  (a) in preventing the commission by any other person of an act of terrorism".
  Thus, it does not refer to an act of terrorism by the person being questioned.
  The hon. Member for Hillsborough spoke of his belief in the need for a united Ireland and for political solutions to many of the problems. One always sympathises with those who want peaceful solutions to problems, but not many hon. Members would go along with him in saying that terrorists are deeply convinced political animals who believe they are fighting for a just cause — [Interruption.] They are certainly animals. Everyone is entitled to struggle to achieve peacefully his political ambition, but Members of Parliament of all people should make it plain to all that they could never countenance the use of force to obtain political ends.
  Mr. Hume: Why then do the Government support a policy in Northern Ireland under which those known to have committed terrorist crimes are given immunity because they give evidence against their accomplices?
  Mr. Waddington: Under English law it has always been possible for the prosecution to allow someone to turn Queen's evidence and so give evidence for the Crown. It is for the state to decide where the balance of advantage lies. It is not a power to be used lightly, but if scores of lives could be saved by giving one man immunity from prosecution and by putting many others in prison, it is obvious what the prosecuting authorities should do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) rightly pointed out that there is growing evidence of terrorists in one country supporting terrorists in other countries. He called upon us to see that there was better intelligence about terrorist agencies throughout the world. He wanted us to ensure that our agencies were sufficiently well staffed to do their work. He wanted to know whether there was enough international intelligence sharing. This is not the time to reply to the various points. They are good points, and obviously they will be read by many and will be borne in mind. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that it is our job to make it more difficult for terrorists to get hold of weapons.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) pointed out — I think he was answering the hon. Member for Hillsborough—that no one is opposed to dreams, but most hon. Members are opposed to the use of violence to achieve those dreams. He was correct in saying that there was nothing arbitrary about the powers of arrest in the Bill. A great deal of loose language has been used. These are powers that can be exercised only on reasonable suspicion.
  My hon. Friend said that what the Government resented was not the fact that the Opposition had changed their mind—anybody is entitled to change his mind—but the fact that not once during this debate had anybody on the Opposition Benches who previously voted for these measures explained why he had changed his mind.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the Bill represents a fundamental change in the criminal law, in that in the past arrests occurred on the ground of evidence, whereas arrest or detention can occur now merely on the ground of reasonable suspicion? Reasonable suspicion is now sought to replace the doctrine of reasonable evidence for the cause of arrest.
  Mr. Waddington: The Bill gives the Executive exceptional powers, and no one doubts that for one moment. I was referring a moment ago to the fact that for nine years the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was perfectly happy for his Government and other Governments to have these exceptional powers. Now he trots along to the House and without giving us any explanation says that he has had a great change of mind. The hon. Member for Hillsborough let the cat out of the bag. The Labour Government in office recognised the need for emergency powers, and the Labour Governments of 1974 and 1976 legislated accordingly. Each year thereafter the Labour Government invited Parliament to renew the powers, and Parliament did so.
  In 1983 the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook invited his colleagues to vote in the opposite direction when the terrorist menace was no less than it had been and when 1982 had been the worst year since 1974 for deaths— there were 11 in all—as a result of terrorist acts.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I say with the utmost respect to the Minister that he has not answered the
  110
  question about reasonable suspicion. Is he attributing to that a subjective reasonable suspicion or an objective reasonable suspicion? He is introducing a new concept of law into our system. Can the Minister answer my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Waddington: The concept is not new. It has existed in this form since it was introduced by a Labour Government in 1974. There was neither rhyme nor reason for this sudden change of front by the right hon. Gentleman, just as there is neither rhyme nor reason for the amendment.
  Mr. Soley: Instead of the Minister pursuing this ridiculous charge, which we have dealt with over and over again, will he give some time in the remaining minutes available to discuss how the Bill will prevent terrorism? Let us have some evidence and deal with the serious points of alienation and the rest to which he has not addressed himself.
  Mr. Waddington: The problem with any measures such as these is that it is not possible to prove how many people have been deterred by the existence of the powers in them. However, there can be no doubt that Lord Jellicoe concluded that the powers were necessary. I have quoted chapter and verse to Opposition Members. They do not like it.
  It is possible to argue that, if one takes exceptional powers, they can be used as a recruiting agent for terrorists. However, there is an equally strong argument that many terrorists will be deterred from entering Britain if they must face controls at the ports. Many terrorists will be deterred from committing criminal and terrorist acts if they are detained under these powers.
  Mr. Soley: The Minister is avoiding my questions again and it is clear that he has not taken account of what I have said. I gave two examples of how an assessment of whether the Act works could be made. He has not even thought about them. Will he give the House some hope that he will at least consider them? If he does not, we shall have good reason to believe that, far from preventing terrorism, the Bill will play into the hands of paramilitary groups.
  Mr. Waddington: Once again I must invite the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Jellicoe report, which provides ample support for the reintroduction of a Bill which until recently Opposition Members thought necessary for the protection of the public. The Oppostion's volte face was a sickening and humiliating surrender by the so-called moderates in the Labour party to the extremists. The amendment is of the same order.
  If the Bill were not passed, some inconvenience suffered by people who travel between Ireland and the mainland would be removed, but the difficulty of the police in identifying and catching terrorists and preventing them from carrying out their heinous acts would be greatly increased. If the Bill were not passed and there were no security controls at the ports, people could come and go at will. They would include active terrorists. There would be public anger when it was realised that the Secretary of State could not prevent the most undersirable and vicious creatures travelling freely from one part of the United Kingdom to another. There would be nothing short of outrage when members of the IRA started to flaunt themselves in public, hold meetings and cadge coppers to buy bombs with which to blow up people.

  111
  There is no doubt that the police want these powers which have helped them significantly in their fight against terrorism. The police deserve our good wishes for their work. It is more important, however, that they receive the practical support which the Bill will provide. We have not yet succeeded in stamping out terrorism. While the threat remains it is our duty to the British people to do all that we reasonably can to meet it. The Opposition would have us make it easier for the terrorists. We shall carry out our duty and make it as difficult as possible.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 302.

  Division No. 45]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Hardy, Peter

  Alton, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Anderson, Donald

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ashton, Joe

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Home Robertson, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Barron, Kevin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Bell, Stuart

  Hume, John

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Kinnock, Neil

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Lamond, James

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clarke, Thomas

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clay, Robert

  Loyden, Edward

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Coleman, Donald

  McGuire, Michael

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  McKelvey, William

  Corbett, Robin

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  McWilliam, John

  Craigen, J. M.

  Madden, Max

  Crowther, Stan

  Marek, Dr John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Maxton, John

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Meacher, Michael

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Michie, William

  Deakins, Eric

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dewar, Donald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dixon, Donald

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dobson, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dormand, Jack

  Nellist, David

  Douglas, Dick

  O'Brien, William

  Dubs, Alfred

  O'Neill, Martin

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Parry, Robert

  Eadie, Alex

  Patchett, Terry

  Eastham, Ken

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

  Pike, Peter

  Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Prescott, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Radice, Giles

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Redmond, M.

  Flannery, Martin

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Foster, Derek

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Foulkes, George

  Robertson, George

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Rogers, Allan

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Rooker, J. W.

  George, Bruce

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Rowlands, Ted

  112

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tinn, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Wareing, Robert

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Welsh, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, James

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Soley, Clive

  Winnick, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Stott, Roger

  Strang, Gavin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Harry Cowans.

  NOES

  Ancram, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Arnold, Tom

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forth, Eric

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Franks, Cecil

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Freeman, Roger

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Freud, Clement

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

  Gale, Roger

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Galley, Roy

  Baldry, Anthony

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Beggs, Roy

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Beith, A. J.

  Gorst, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Best, Keith

  Gregory, Conal

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Ground, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hannam, John

  Browne, John

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Harvey, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, J.

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Cartwright, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hickmet, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hirst, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Coombs, Simon

  Holt, Richard

  Cope, John

  Hooson, Tom

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howard, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Crouch, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Howells, Geraint

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Dover, Denshore

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jackson, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Fallon, Michael

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Farr, John

  Johnston, Russell

  Favell, Anthony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  113

  Kennedy, Charles

  Penhaligon, David

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Key, Robert

  Pollock, Alexander

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Porter, Barry

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Powley, John

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Knowles, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Knox, David

  Proctor, K Harvey

  Lang, Ian

  Raffan, Keith

  Latham, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lester, Jim

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Lightbown, David

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lilley, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lord, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lyell, Nicholas

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  McCrea, Rev William

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McCusker, Harold

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Silvester, Fred

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Sims, Roger

  Maclean, David John.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Madel, David

  Speed, Keith

  Maginnis, Ken

  Speller, Tony

  Major, John

  Spencer, D.

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Malone, Gerald

  Squire, Robin

  Maples, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, John

  Marlow, Antony

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mather, Carol

  Stern, Michael

  Maude, Francis

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Mellor, David

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Merchant, Piers

  Sumberg, David

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Taylor, John (Strangford)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moate, Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Moore, John

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Mudd, David

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Murphy, Christopher

  Thurnham, Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Needham, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Nicholson, J.

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Norris, Steven

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waddington, David

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walden, George

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Wallace, James

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Waller, Gary

  Parris, Matthew

  Ward, John

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watson, John

  114

  Watts, John

  Woodcock, Michael

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Wheeler, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitfield, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wilkinson, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Douglas Hogg.

  Wood, Timothy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 46.

  Division No. 46]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Ancram, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Arnold, Tom

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ashby, David

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Forth, Eric

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Franks, Cecil

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Freeman, Roger

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Freud, Clement

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Gale, Roger

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

  Galley, Roy

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Baldry, Anthony

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Beggs, Roy

  Gorst, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gregory, Conal

  Best, Keith

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Grist, Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Ground, Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hannam, John

  Browne, John

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Harvey, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, J.

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heddle, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Henderson, Barry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hill, James

  Colvin, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Coombs, Simon

  Hirst, Michael

  Cope, John

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Holt, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Hooson, Tom

  Crouch, David

  Howard, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Dover, Denshore

  Howells, Geraint

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Fallon, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Farr, John

  Jackson, Robert

  Favell, Anthony

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Johnston, Russell

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  115

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Norris, Steven

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Key, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Parris, Matthew

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Knowles, Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Knox, David

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lang, Ian

  Pollock, Alexander

  Latham, Michael

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Powley, John

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Price, Sir David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Lester, Jim

  Raffan, Keith

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lightbown, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lilley, Peter

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Lord, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  McCusker, Harold

  Rowe, Andrew

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Ryder, Richard

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Maclean, David John,

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Madel, David

  Silvester, Fred

  Maginnis, Ken

  Sims, Roger

  Major, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Malone, Gerald

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maples, John

  Speed, Keith

  Marland, Paul

  Speller, Tony

  Marlow, Antony

  Spencer, D.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mather, Carol

  Squire, Robin

  Maude, Francis

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stanley, John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Mellor, David

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Moate, Roger

  Sumberg, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tapsell, Peter

  Moore, John

  Taylor, John (Strangford)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Christopher

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nicholson, J.

  Thurnham, Peter

  116

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wheeler, John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Whitfield, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Whitney, Raymond

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Wilkinson, John

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waddington, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Woodcock, Michael

  Walden, George

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Wallace, James

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Waller, Gary

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Ward, John

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watson, John

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and

  Watts, John

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ashton, Joe

  Loyden, Edward

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  McKelvey, William

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Meacher, Michael

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Nellist, David

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Parry, Robert

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Canavan, Dennis

  Pike, Peter

  Clay, Robert

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Cohen, Harry

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Rogers, Allan

  Dixon, Donald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Eastham, Ken

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Wareing, Robert

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hume, John

  Lamond, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Mr. Martin Flannery and

  Litherland, Robert

  Mr. Andrew Bennett

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  PREVENTION OF TERRORISM [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal and re-enact with amendments the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with—

  (a) the control of travel into and out of any part of the United Kingdom, including the provision of facilities for examining officers; and

  (b) the making of exclusion orders and the removal from any part of the United Kingdom of persons subject to such orders.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

  Hedgerow Protection and Conservation
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the great concern about the continuing and expensive destruction of the British landscape. There is widespread resentment that money should continue to be lavished in support of destruction. Although the Minister no longer gives grants for the removal of hedgerows, if the removal is part of a wider scheme of so-called improvement, grant is provided.
  Just when more and more people are experiencing enforced leisure, the countryside, which could give them free comfort and enjoyment, is being made less attractive. It is right for the House, on the first day after the long recess, to consider priorities.
  The countryside could provide enjoyment and comfort for the unemployed. The Minister should be aware that the countryside is also an important tourist attraction which for economic and aesthetic reasons, should not be lightly destroyed. The destruction is alarming. Thousands of miles of hedgerows have gone in recent years. In most counties the removal has been extensive. In Huntingdonshire three quarters of the hedgerows have gone since the war. In every English county residents can point to the spot where once there an ancient hedgerow. In many parishes only a few hedgerows remain.
  Only today we heard of the contemptuous destruction of a hedgerow near Romney Marsh by a farmer who should know better because he is a public representative. I refer to Mr. Boulden of Aldington. Romney:Marsh was once an area rich in hedgerows. Once it was beautiful, but it is now more barren than it should be.
  Much publicity was given a few months ago to another Kent farmer named Batchelor who appeared to believe that hedgerows and wildlife should be destroyed, yet, as television series frequently suggest, and one currently about the hedgerows may demonstrate, such features provide shelter and habitat for many species.
  The Minister is aware of the position. A catalogue of destruction is available in his Department. The Minister should also be aware that the community believes that the environment should not be ravaged and that the removal of attractive features which make our lowland areas as important in environment and aesthetic terms as our more majestic uplands should be prevented.
  Because of the destruction of hedgerows I presented a Bill last year which I believed would be acceptable. The Bill would have guaranteed the survival of many important hedgerows—important in local terms and important in retaining a skeleton of hedgerow conservation throughout England and Wales. I believed then, as I do today, that most farmers would welcome such a measure. I do not believe that the National Farmers Union was opposed to it, but the Government blocked it. Perhaps they believed that we could rely on the voluntary spirit. Many landowners and farmers are responsible people, but a substantial minority are not concerned and care little for the general interest. They care not at all about the environment in which their neighbours and themselves live. That lack of care has been revealed in recent months by the frequent and contemptuous disdain for the National Farmers Union straw burning code. I refer to that in
  118
  passing as an illustration of irresponsibility. The fatal consequences of that disdain were the destruction of hundreds of miles of hedgerows. We must respond to a situation in which that disdainful irresponsibility can disregard any consideration other than that of personal profit. There are 6 million tonnes of wheat and 1½ million tonnes of barley in surplus in the EC. Therefore, we must be right to begin to question our priorities.
  The Government were careless in their blocking of my Bill last year. Their attitude was abysmal—not least because of their reliance upon a voluntary response that has already proved grossly deficient. The Government imagine that ratification of the Berne convention governing the protection of certain species is all that they need to do. But the habitat on which those species depend is also at risk and deserves a measure of protection.
  The other day I was shown a photograph of a member of the Yorkshire Wildlife 'Trust deliberately breaking the law by pulling up a protected wild flower. He could be fined severely for that. Yet the day after he deliberately committed that offence, the landowner — perhaps subsidised by taxpayers' funds—destroyed the whole of the area in which the wild flower grew. The landowner could not be prosecuted, but the individual naturalist could be. He took such action to focus attention on the problem —attention that I am seeking to command through this debate tonight.
  We must insist that taxpayers' money does not obliterate the attractions of our countryside. During the past 20 years no less than £1,500 million has been given from public funds towards the destruction of our countryside—not for the support of production; not for the subsidy of farmers, but in direct grant towards changing the appearance of our environment. It has gone too far.
  Since my Bill was blocked there have been certain developments. I hope that the Minister will comment upon them. Last year many people wrote to me about the Government's blocking of my Bill. Some were from Norfolk, who complained about large areas of featureless earth in their county. Some were from Derbyshire, who felt that hedgerow removal should be governed by planning consent. Children wrote to me from all parts of the country, including a boy from Weymouth who had walked along eight miles in his locality where the hedgerows had been removed. People from the Naturalist Trust in Worcester wrote to me about the removal of 7½ miles of hedgerow on a single farm.
  The concern I felt extended from Kent in the south-east to virtually every county north of that. People who express abhorrence of the destruction are sometimes well publicised but, more frequently, the destruction is locally regretted and there is little impact in the media.
  Mr. Seymour of Methley in West Yorkshire wrote to me about the Methley Enclosure Act of 1786, which required that hedgerows should be maintained. I recall that the Wath upon Dearne Enclosure Act—I live and was born there—has the same requirement. I studied other such Acts and discovered that the vast majority required the perpetual maintenance of hedgerows. I studied Enclosure Acts in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Durham. They all confirmed the requirement for fencing by quickset. I contacted my local authorities— South Yorkshire county and Rotherham borough councils. The Rotherham borough council, an efficient authority, was immediately helpful and drew my attention to the case

  119
  of Garnet v. Pratt in June 1926. The plaintiff succeeded in his case against a neighbour who had removed a boundary required by enclosure legislation in Hawes in North Yorkshire. That case is relevant. It is clear that, as a result of the case, the law still stands.
  When I raised the matter in the House shortly afterwards, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said that the perpetual requirement no longer applies, but even Ministers cannot make laws off-the-cuff at the Dispatch Box. The law still applies. It applies in Chester-le-Street, in Durham, and in a number of parishes that I have examined in Lincolnshire. It is interesting that in the barley areas of South Hykeham, Tetney and Kirton in Lindsey, the requirement is tighter than it is in most other parts of the country. In Kirton in Lindsey 4,600 acres were enclosed in 1793. The Act laid down that there should be kept in perpetuity good thriving fences planted with quicksets of white thorns and guarded for ever on both sides with good posts.
  Those Acts have never been repealed. The whole basis of the Government's approach has been to suggest that the Acts can be ignored. I do not believe that we can make fish and fowl of legislation. After the Minister suggested that the legislation no longer applied, I looked at the Enclosure Act for Dalton in my constituency, passed in 1797. That Act required fences to be composed of quicksets and for ever to be maintained, as it did for my own township of Wath upon Dearne. Those requirements are usual and so I was rather surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary's response. I continued to correspond with Ministers, and Lord Ferrers wrote to me to say that:
  "It is the responsibility of the applicant for grant to ensure that work on which he wishes to claim grant complies with all the relevant statutory requirements."
  He added that claimants apparently sign to the effect that they have met this responsibility. Lord Ferrers went on to say that if a declaration had been wrongly signed, if a hedgerow or wall required by the Enclosure Act had, for example, been cleared—and cleared with the assistance of grant as many of them have been—the Minister would have to consider whether to withhold the grant in the case of an application or, if the grant had been already paid, to recover it. I do not suggest that the Minister can go around recovering hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money which has been spent illegally. I accept that that would be difficult and that the National Farmers Union would be cross and the Conservative party might suffer accordingly. I suggest that the Minister cannot allow such an unsatisfactory position to be maintained. Some farmers may pale at the prospect of local environmentalists doing their homework and bringing forward prosecutions. There are those who would welcome such an upheaval. I would welcome a more sensible approach than the present one. We should try to avoid bringing thousands of farmers to litigation. It could come to that if the Government maintain their negligent approach.
  The Government should reconsider their attitude to the perfectly reasonable Bill that I presented last year. They should take the opportunity of giving that Bill, which was generally wanted, a fair wind and rectify the ridiculous anomaly of the Enclosure Acts, which could bring considerable headaches to farmers and to the Government. The Government should take another look at that Bill. The environmentalists, those who are concerned with our
  120
  countryside and landscape, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, would welcome the Bill. The Government should be prepared to accept an opportunity to correct this enclosure anomaly.
  If the Minister is not prepared to take suitable steps he should understand that the law is there and that the case of Garnet v. Pratt of 1926, which is the most recent case available, is relevant and points the way for the conservationists of Britain to take some action to protect our landscape, a protection that the Government have inadequately considered.
  There is another question that I should like to ask. I am advised by reputable lawyers that existing legislation does not prevent local authorities from deciding that a hedgerow can be protected by a tree preservation order—perhaps the protection of a series of hawthorn trees; whether they are interlaced or not makes no difference. If local authorities have a particularly attractive hedgerow in mind, they should be able to protect it. The Department has never been keen and has never suggested that local authorities should make such orders, but the Minister should make it clear to the House that they have the opportunity to do so. If the law allows protection, the Minister should confirm that local authorities may have the capacity to provide it.
  The Minister is certainly aware that lots of money has been spent to ensure the vast destruction of our landscape, and he should certainly be aware that lots of the money has not been spent lawfully. I hope that he will now be made increasingly aware that the destruction that has taken place in the past few years is regarded as shameful. Hundreds of thousands of people in this country are beginning to resent it and to say that something should be done about it.
  I believe that we have got our priorities all wrong. In my area, only 521 of nearly 3,500 school leavers this summer have jobs. Our industries are devastated and our employment opportunities are weakened, yet the Government can continue to lavish grants for the destruction of that which may be the only cause of comfort and consolation for the young people in my and other industrial areas of this country.
  Perhaps at this time, more than at any other since the war, we need to try to provide some people with that which may be free. I accept that the spirit of Conservative Members may disregard and have contempt for that view, because the god that they serve is profit. Perhaps they prefer to see irresponsible individual farmers serving the gods of excess production and excess profit, even though it may diminish the quality of life for the rest of the country. But that quality has to be conserved and the Government must have some concern for it. I trust that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that the Government—perhaps untypically—are prepared to change their approach and to afford a higher priority to the retention of a decent environment in our once beautiful country.
  10.42 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for giving us the opportunity to debate the important subject of hedgerow protection and conservation. Many people outside the House are interested in the subject.

  121
  A previous Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said in the House several years ago that he was a hedge enthusiast. The hon. Member for Wentworth is obviously one also. His record on the subject is well known.
  I, too, fully recognise the value of hedgerows and I am keen to see them retained as an essential feature of the rural landscape. But the question that we need to consider is how best that desirable object can be achieved. The hon. Gentleman has given me some interesting facts and pointers. He has obviously done his research and has had access to information. I note what he has said and will try to reply to all his points in the fullness of time, but time may prevent a detailed scrutiny of some of them tonight.
  Two years ago, during the Committee stage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, several of the hon. Member's colleagues sponsored amendments intended to bring hedgerows within the statutory control system. The hon. Member, who was a member of that Committee, urged an element of statutory protection for important hedgerows. The explanations were developed in some detail on 18 June 1981 and time forbids a close scrutiny of the reasons.
  Later, some 18 months ago, the hon. Member for Wentworth presented his Hedgerows Bill, the purpose of which was to provide statutory protection for all hedgerows on agricultural land which followed parish boundaries, farm boundaries, footpaths, bridleways, byways and public roads, thus affecting many hundreds of miles of hedges. I explained to the hon. Member in my letter of 14 May 1982 why the Government could not support that Bill, and why we favoured instead the positive approach of voluntary co-operation with and encouragement to the farming community.
  The encouragement I have referred to takes a number of forms. First, there is the valuable work of the Countryside Commission in promoting conservation by the farming community. The 10 farms in their demonstration farms project provide practical demonstrations to farmers and others of how profitable farming can be carried out with due regard to conservation of essential landscape features, including hedgerows.
  This message is also put across to farmers and landowners by means of advice in the Countryside Commission handbook, published by the Countryside Commission jointly with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. There are about half a million miles of hedges in Britain, and the hedge management leaf explains their importance to agriculture, wildlife and the visual quality of the countryside.
  It also sets out the many useful purposes that hedged serve—
  "providing a stock-proof barrier, shelter for stock, land character, wildlife habitat, a deterrent to trespass and screening for eyesores.
  It explains in detail the best management techniques.
  Much advice to farmers is given through the services of the agricultural development advisory service and I have been interested to read the colourful booklet it published last year on "Farming and the Countryside That booklet emphasises the need to retain in particular
  "thick old hedges especially those with 4 or more woody species per 30 metres",
  122
  and points out that, even in arable areas, there is litle economic advantage to be gained from field sizes in excess of 20 hectares.
  MAFF grants for the removal of hedgerows were, of course, stopped in 1974, and MAFF grants are available for hedge-laying to encourage better management.
  Mr. Hardy: I am glad to have the Minister's agreement, but he does not seem fully to agree with me that grants in respect of hedgerow destruction alone are not provided but that grants in respect of hedgerow destruction as part of a wider scheme of so called improvement are still available.
  Mr. Macfarlane: But surely the most important feature is that grants for the removal of hedgerows were stopped almost 10 years ago and that grants are available for hedge laying to encourage better management. That seems to me to be an important dimension.
  The Countryside Commission has recently introduced a new grants structure which is intended to make support for landscape conservation work more widely available. The new landscape conservation grants will be available for the restoration of hedgerows, hedge banks and stone walls. In particular the Commission has said that the grants will be available for restoration or rejuvenation of ancient hedgerows visually important in the landscape, and priority will be given to hedge banks which form such an important part of the traditional countryside scene, especially in western Britain.
  my letter of 14 May 1982, to which I have rred, that both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Countryside Commission believe that the rate of removal declined substantially since the 1960s and early. We recognise that the extent of landscape change, including the rate of hedgerow removal, is a matter of bate, and this has highlighted the inadequacy of the which many of the assertions about country rest. At the outset of his remarks, the hon.uoted some facts, statistics and details. welcome some further information on We have therefore decided, after Departments and bodies, to Countryside Commission research deficiency of statistical evidence.assist in to of the effectiveness of the need for possible changes,rtment has recently invited ers for this bjective of which is to obtain stically reliable on the current distribution and extent of feature landscape importance in the countryside in England and Wales. This will include hedgerows, dry stone) dgerow banks.
  The hon. Member instance of a farmer in Kent who earlier national notoriety as a result of his destruction hedgerows in an area of outstanding natural be was a disgraceful event and one which was the subject of a court action. In that case the farmer concerned disregarded certain tree-preservation orders for which he was summoned and found guilty. I mention this because it illustrates the shortcomings of a system of statutory controls. Although the Kent farmer paid the penalty, the trees have been removed and there is no way in which they can be replaced except by saplings, which will not mature for several years. A voluntary conservation system, by which farmers

  123
  are encouraged to consider the voluntary conservation implications before taking action, must stand more chance of success. But I must explain that the in Kent was exceptional and attracted a great deal of publicity for that very reason. The work of the majority of farmers and landowners who pay proper regard to conservation in their farming operations goes largely unreported.
  Dr. John Marek: Will hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Macfarlane: Many SSSIs will contain hedgerows of importance in ecological terms, and those are covered by the new SSSI procedures introduced.by the Act.
  Dr. Marek: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Macfarlane: I hope to deal with several more of the points that have been raised. If the hon. Gentleman has a detailed point to make, perhaps write to me. I should like to give way, but I feel that I ought to plough on.
  The Act also includes provision for management agreements, and many of these could of course cover areas of land which include the most valuable hedgerows. Some old hedges will be associated with green lanes, which by the generally-accepted definition are rights of way bounded on both sides by hedges, walls or other boundary features. Although we did not include in the Act specific provisions covering green lanes we hope, as my Department's circular 32/81, that the legislative changes introduced on the plough rights of way will assist in their preservation
  Mr. Hardy: Until the three-month removed, it will be dangerous to suggest hedgerow should be proposed as an SSSI
  Mr. Macfarlane: I take note of that
  The hon. Member has referred to that some of the straw and stubble burning has had on hedgerows. He will Government are most concerned my right hon. Friend the Minister of and Food is looking into this
  The hon. Member for made interesting comments. Perhaps ble to take, the, matter further in correspondence mation has gathered and the advice from quarters is always of interest, of course con any point that he wishes he can give detailed information which supports his point of view, I will have the into further.
  I referred earlier to the advice available to farmers and the methods is given. I have been interested to read the Commission's first five year programme of the countryside, which it has recently published. The commission fully
  124
  recognises that its primary concern in the lowlands is the pressure for agricultural change. It goes on to say that its approach hinges on persuading farmers and landowners to take conservation account in their farm plans and everyday management. They also emphasise the availability of grant-aid for conserving important landscape features, for management agreements, and for the employment of countryside advisers by suitable public and voluntary bodies to give advice on conservation to farmers and landowners. Advice on retention of hedges, as part of an integrated approach which takes into account the whole range of landscape features and wildlife habitats, will form an essential part of the voluntary approach which we see to be the best way forward. It is not the only way, and many points have been made this evening that I should like to consider before communicating with the hon. Gentleman in due course.
  We certainly have an open mind on many of these issues, and I believe that the debate will have served a very useful purpo e that it will be widely read and understood. The hon. Gentleman's record over the years on this issue is constructive and in many respects quite convincing.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has pointed out that many farmers have apparently been breaking the enclosure Acts. Will the Minister make it quite clear that he believes in law and order, and that the Government will take action to deal with the matter?
  Mr. Macfarlane: I cannot give an immediate assurance to the hon. Gentleman. Of course I believe in the concept of law and order, but I want to find out exactly what is the background to the evidence produced this evening. I have given the House an assurance that we shall have the matter looked at further.
  The debate has been useful. I am sorry that we cannot go into the matter further. However, the hon. Member for Wentworth has raised many points on which I should like to correspond further with him.
  Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): There is still a minute left in which to speak.
  Dr. Marek: If the Minister is not prepared to take any statutory action for the retention of hedgerows, will he tighten up the regulations so that grants for the removal of hedgerows are given only when there is a great rather than improvement of land? If this tightening——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  .Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENERGY
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Efficiency Office
  Energy Efficiency Office
  Petroleum Products
  Petroleum Products
  Isle of Grain Power Station
  Isle of Grain Power Station
PRIME MINISTER
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Canada and the United States (Visit)
  Canada and the United States (Visit)
  General Belgrano
  General Belgrano
  "Alcohol Policies in the United Kingdom"
  "Alcohol Policies in the United Kingdom"
  Department of Health and Social Security
  Department of Health and Social Security
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Criminal Proceedings (Northern Ireland)
  Criminal Proceedings (Northern Ireland)
  Parentage
  Parentage
  Junior Bar (Fees)
  Junior Bar (Fees)
  Mr. Anthony Hamilton (Trial)
  Mr. Anthony Hamilton (Trial)
  Court of the European Community
  Court of the European Community
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Mowden Hall, Darlington
  Mowden Hall, Darlington
SCOTLAND
  River Pollution
  River Pollution
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Central Heating (Rating Valuation)
  Central Heating (Rating Valuation)
  Falkland Islands Airport
  Falkland Islands Airport
  Free Ports
  Free Ports
  Nunhead and Highgate Cemeteries
  Nunhead and Highgate Cemeteries
  Henry Moore Statue
  Henry Moore Statue
  Shared Ownership Scheme
  Shared Ownership Scheme
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Home Improvement Grant Scheme
  Home Improvement Grant Scheme
  Ethylene Dibromide
  Ethylene Dibromide
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
WALES
  NHS (Staff Reductions)
  NHS (Staff Reductions)
  Burns and Plastic Unit
  Burns and Plastic Unit
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Olives
  Olives
  Wheat and Grain
  Wheat and Grain
  Aspartame
  Aspartame
  Woking Constituency
  Woking Constituency
  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Foresty Commission (Unplanted Land)
  Foresty Commission (Unplanted Land)
  European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund
  European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund
  Artificial Sweeteners
  Artificial Sweeteners
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Visitors
  Visitors
NATIONAL FINANCE
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Industrial Building Allowances
  Industrial Building Allowances
  Insurance Salesmen (Taxation)
  Insurance Salesmen (Taxation)
  Value Added Tax (Small Business)
  Value Added Tax (Small Business)
  Housing Associations (Corporation Tax)
  Housing Associations (Corporation Tax)
  Home Brewing Kits (Taxation)
  Home Brewing Kits (Taxation)
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Investment Income Surcharge
  Civil Servants (Creches)
  Civil Servants (Creches)
  Coin-operated Machines (Duty)
  Coin-operated Machines (Duty)
  Fixed Capital Formation (Agriculture)
  Fixed Capital Formation (Agriculture)
  Free Ports
  Free Ports
  Official Report (Price)
  Official Report (Price)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Inspectors of Taxes
  Inspectors of Taxes
  Value Added Tax (Youth Training Scheme)
  Value Added Tax (Youth Training Scheme)
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Victims of Crime (Compensation)
  Victims of Crime (Compensation)
  Police Cells
  Police Cells
  Rape
  Rape
  Domestic Fires (Accidents)
  Domestic Fires (Accidents)
  Prisons (Discipline)
  Prisons (Discipline)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  World Communication Year
  World Communication Year
  Overseas Companies (Grants)
  Overseas Companies (Grants)
  Electrocution
  Electrocution
  Regional Development Grants (Merseyside)
  Regional Development Grants (Merseyside)
  British Rail Stations (Taxi Franchises)
  British Rail Stations (Taxi Franchises)
  Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce
  Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce
  Overseas Trade Missions
  Overseas Trade Missions
  Petrol Sales (Short Measures)
  Petrol Sales (Short Measures)
  Ship's Radio Licence Fee
  Ship's Radio Licence Fee
  Television (Broadcasting Interference)
  Television (Broadcasting Interference)
THE ARTS
  Business Sponsorship
  Business Sponsorship
CIVIL SERVICE
  Dispersal Policy
  Dispersal Policy
  Lecture Fees
  Lecture Fees
  Municipal Funding
  Municipal Funding
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Budget
  Aid Budget
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Argentina
  Argentina
  European Court of Human Rights
  European Court of Human Rights
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Portugal
  Portugal
TRANSPORT
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Coaches (Speeding)
  Coaches (Speeding)
  St. Pancras-Sheffield Line
  St. Pancras-Sheffield Line
  British Rail (Safety)
  British Rail (Safety)
  Marylebone Station
  Marylebone Station
  Merchant Fleet
  Merchant Fleet
  Rail Network
  Rail Network
  Archway Road Scheme
  Archway Road Scheme
  British Rail (Investment)
  British Rail (Investment)
  Midland Link Motorway
  Midland Link Motorway
  Public Transport (London)
  Public Transport (London)
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Tyne and Wear
  Tyne and Wear
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  Environment (Protection)
  Environment (Protection)
  Coaches (Safety Standards)
  Coaches (Safety Standards)
  Road Building
  Road Building
  M11 (Birchanger)
  M11 (Birchanger)
  Airports
  Airports
  A12 Chelmsford Bypass
  A12 Chelmsford Bypass
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
  Estuarial Crossings (Tolls)
  Estuarial Crossings (Tolls)
  M27 (Completion)
  M27 (Completion)
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  Motorway Repairs
  Motorway Repairs
  Motorways (Contra-flow Working)
  Motorways (Contra-flow Working)
  Motorways (Construction Materials)
  Motorways (Construction Materials)
  Fixed Channel Link
  Fixed Channel Link
  Car Registrations
  Car Registrations
  M65 (Completion)
  M65 (Completion)
  British Rail (Grants)
  British Rail (Grants)
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Road Maintenance (Report)
  Road Maintenance (Report)
  Marine Pilots
  Marine Pilots
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Her Majesty's Prison, Armagh (Strip Searches)
  Her Majesty's Prison, Armagh (Strip Searches)
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Domestic Capital Formation
  Domestic Capital Formation
  Investment
  Investment
  Claims Settlements
  Claims Settlements
  Repair Grants (Churches)
  Repair Grants (Churches)
  Exchequer Subventions
  Exchequer Subventions
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Training Schemes
  Youth Training Schemes
  Youth Training Scheme and Community Programme
  Youth Training Scheme and Community Programme
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Youth Training (Health and Safety)
  Youth Training (Health and Safety)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mr. Larry Gostin
  Mr. Larry Gostin
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Sterilisations
  Sterilisations
  Departmental Grants
  Departmental Grants
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Orobronze
  Orobronze
  Regional Health Authorities
  Regional Health Authorities
  Royal Liverpool Teaching Hospital
  Royal Liverpool Teaching Hospital
  Health Expenditure (Liverpool)
  Health Expenditure (Liverpool)
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Hospital Closures (London)
  Hospital Closures (London)
  NHS (Plasma Imports)
  NHS (Plasma Imports)
  Asbestos (Cancer)
  Asbestos (Cancer)
  NHS Blood (Charges)
  NHS Blood (Charges)
  Elderly Persons (Hospitalisation)
  Elderly Persons (Hospitalisation)
  Nursing Staffs (Shortages)
  Nursing Staffs (Shortages)
  Overseas Pensioners
  Overseas Pensioners
  Phenylalanine
  Phenylalanine
  Chemist Contractors (Discounts)
  Chemist Contractors (Discounts)
  Doctors (Retirement Pensions)
  Doctors (Retirement Pensions)
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  NHS (Staff Reductions)
  NHS (Staff Reductions)
  Mental Health Services
  Mental Health Services
  Secure Facilities
  Secure Facilities
DEFENCE
  Royal Air Force (Helicopter Responsibilities)
  Royal Air Force (Helicopter Responsibilities)
  New Army Helmet
  New Army Helmet
  RAF Woodbridge (Alleged Incident)
  RAF Woodbridge (Alleged Incident)
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Trident Programme
  Trident Programme

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Mr. J. V. D. Webb: Tributes
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a brief statement. It is my sad duty to have to tell the House of the death of John Webb, who since 1977 has been the Fourth Clerk at the Table and head of the Judicial Office. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to his widow, who will be known to some of your Lordships, as she herself was a member of the staff of the House until recently.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has asked me to express his regret that, because he is sitting judicially this afternoon, he is unable to be present on the Woolsack. He has asked me to pass on to the House his own deep regret and his condolences to Mrs. Webb.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should like on behalf of my noble friends to associate myself with the statement of the Leader of the House, and the message of sympathy and condolences to the wife of John Webb, whom I knew personally and held in the highest regard. He rendered conspicuous public service as Fourth Clerk at the Table and as head of the Judicial Office.

Youth Training Scheme: Response
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the level of response from companies to the youth training scheme.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): Yes, my Lords, the Government are satisfied that the response has been excellent.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the briefness of his reply, if not the information contained in it. I hope that in answer to this supplementary question he may perhaps give us a little more material. Is he aware that this scheme has been described in responsible newspapers as the most imaginative in Western Europe? What are the numbers of those who have currently agreed to enter the scheme and train for a year? Are the Government satisfied that the present rate of intake is matching their expectations?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I will not conceal from my noble friend or the House that in the very early stages of what is, after all, a novel scheme we were a little anxious at the rate of take-up, but by 20th October over 200,000 young people had entered the scheme and during the first three weeks of October over 56,000 young people entered it; so things are now progressing well.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister for an assurance that those young people who are unemployed and who have not taken up places in the scheme will not have their supplementary benefit of £15.80 a week cut if they do not take up places? This was threatened in a circular to local government earlier in the summer.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I know of no such plans for any such cut; but I would urge young people that it is only responsible for them to take up the places which are offered and which are, after all, designed not to provide makeway activities but real training to enhance their possibilities of real employment in a difficult labour market.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of these schemes have been partially financed by grants from the European Social Fund, especially in the London area? Would he agree that that is a useful way of proceeding and of bringing to fruition more schemes, for the benefit particularly of areas of urban deprivation?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am aware of that. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has made additional applications to the European Social Fund for these purposes, which are precisely what it is for and is designed to fulfil.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the information and support being given in schools and colleges for youngsters to take part in these schemes? Secondly, to what extent are the unemployed 17 year-olds being recruited into schemes to fill the gaps which are not being filled by the 16 year-olds?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am not dissatisfied because I have not been given information which might make me dissatisfied, but I will take up the point the noble Baroness has made and make sure that the schools are aware of this potential. From my own experience as a youth employment Minister two years back I know that the schools were co-operating with us very closely on that point. If I may I will take advice on that and on her second supplementary question, and will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, could the noble Earl he a little more frank? What percentage of the places available is represented by the number that has been taken up—the 200,000 that he mentioned? Is it not a fact that a lot of young people are reluctant to join this scheme because they realise that when it is finished they will become unemployed and that this is simply a postponement of their unemployment?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is a relatively open-ended scheme so one cannot talk about proportions in that way. But it would certainly be misguided of young people to behave as the noble Lordsuggests, because while there can be no guarantee of permanent employment as a result of participation in the scheme, as I said earlier it does improve the odds in favour of real employment at a very difficult time in the labour market.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the Minister say anything about the objections of some Civil Service unions in preventing the taking up of some places including, I believe, a proferred place at Downing Street?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as the Minister in day-to-day charge of the Civil Service I have been engaged in quite sensitive negotiations with the unions on this very issue. I am optimistic that we shall shortly have a good result but I do not want to say more than that at the moment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that this could be a very useful scheme which could
4
bear very great fruit but that that will depend on the responsibility of the Government and that it is not so much the young people who are being irresponsible? If at the end of their training they end up on the dole they will naturally be more bitter than they were before entering the scheme. Therefore, is there not a need for a combination to carry on with this imaginative scheme and to reverse part of the Government's policy and have an onslaught on unemployment to make the scheme worthwhile?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said in the first part of his supplementary question. However, I am afraid that on the second part of his supplementary his assumptions are that the Government have control over the overall levels of employment in any given economy. In a free society that is simply not the case.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, is the Minister conscious of the fact that the Church is very deeply involved in this matter across the country and certainly in East Anglia? Does the noble Earl know that the Church is deeply involved in Norwich, Lowestoft, Thetford and King's Lynn with great encouragement and help to young people in giving them confidence for their own future?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am delighted to pay tribute to the Church as a very responsible employer, if I may put it that way.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in view of the skepticism among many young people, particularly unemployed young people, as I have found in Liverpool, which deters them from taking part in the scheme on the ground of the poor prospects of employment at the end of one year, may I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that enough is being done to persuade these young people, by various means, of the intrinsic value of training in a skill, notwithstanding the present and expected state of the labour market?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not think that one can ever be satisfied but I certainly think that all the bodies concerned—particularly the Manpower Services Commission in terms of its excellent direction at regional level on Merseyside—are doing everything they can and are spending the money that we give them well to promote the practical usefulness of the scheme.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend monitor the results of this scheme? If so, perhaps Parliament can be told after a given time how successful is the scheme and whether those who enter it are more likely to obtain jobs as everyone expects? Further, can my noble friend say whether there are arrangements to adjust the training in order that the maximum usefulness of the training can help provide jobs for these young people?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very happy of course to come before your Lordships at any time to report on the progress of the scheme; but, for what my own views are worth, this would be useful when we have had a little more time on the scheme, perhaps in six or seven months' time.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister inform us whether there is an upper age limit for admission to training under this scheme? I know someone aged 85 who would like to be trained.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I will do what I can to pull strings for the noble Lord but he seems to have done very well in the ordinary course of employment.

Nuclear Freeze Proposals
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the Warsaw Pact countries' proposal for a nuclear freeze.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, a freeze on nuclear weapons would perpetuate current imbalances in favour of the Soviet Union and remove the principal incentives for the Russians to agree to reductions. Verification of an agreement to freeze nuclear weapons would be extremely difficult to negotiate. For these reasons we remain convinced that it is better to concentrate on negotiating reductions of nuclear weapons.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in their communiqué of 14th October the Warsaw Pact powers made it clear that they are prepared to put into the bargain the scrapping and reduction of their own intermediate range missiles? What are the Government's individual reactions to that proposal?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the offer that was made by Mr. Andropov was a small step in the right direction but did not amount to very much. The Russians would still have about 500 SS20 warheads targeted on Western Europe and they have offered no constraints on missiles in Asia. The missiles in Asia could be moved within range of NATO quickly in a crisis.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, since there may be difficulties in the way of general acceptance of a nuclear freeze, more particularly in part of the United States, would not the Government agree that it might be more helpful and more productive to concentrate on the alternative proposal for a withdrawal of so-called battlefield nuclear weapons over a certain area on both sides of the dividing line?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the view that this and other NATO Governments take is that NATO Governments have shown a great deal of flexibility in the INF negotiations. We have offered a zero level or an interim agreement providing for equality in warheads between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the freeze might be the starting point for
6
mutually balanced force reductions? Have the Government forgotten in a short time the scare which everyone had when the Korean airliner incident came about? Does she not consider that that makes it necessary to stop escalation and bring about a freeze as a first step towards a reduction in weapons on all sides?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. That is not a view taken by Her Majesty's Government. We believe that a freeze in INF at current levels would be unacceptable given the massive Soviet superiority.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is the noble Baroness perhaps not made sorrowful—though no doubt not alarmed—by the enormous number of different ways that the noble Lord finds to ask us the same question?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has asked questions on this subject many times, but then of course it is the right of a noble Lord to ask the question that he wishes.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the Warsaw Pact suggestion that there might be a freeze on nuclear weapons is just another ploy on their part in the hope that we might delay siting cruise missiles in our country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it may well be, as my noble friend says, that this is one of the reasons for making this proposal, but of course the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that deployment will take place but at the same time that we shall continue to negotiate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is representing the Government's view that the deployment of cruise and Trident will take place anyway—which is an escalation—is it also the Government's view that it increases deterrence to raise the percentage of the human race that can be destroyed by nuclear weapons by 10 times? Is deterrence now to be dependent on the ability of the NATO Alliance to destroy the human race 100 times rather than 10 times?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I have already indicated in answering some of the other supplementary questions, we continue to seek negotiations, but the fact is that the massive build-up of Soviet SS20 forces since the late 1970s has caused a disturbing imbalance in medium-range nuclear weapons. It was against this background that the NATO allies decided in 1979 to modernise their forces by introducing cruise and Pershing.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, would the Government agree that we already have negotiations and that what we now hope for is a solution in time to prevent the deployment?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. We have made it quite clear that, if there were satisfactory negotiations, this position could be reconsidered; but our intention at the present moment is that there will be deployment of cruise and Pershing towards the end of this year.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, as a matter of international law, when one nation accepts the armed forces of another in circumstances in which it abandons all control over their activities, does not that nation cease to be an independent sovereign power and revert to the position of a protectorate; and is that not what we are doing?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords, that is not the case. If the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, is asking a question about joint control of these weapons, I can do no better than repeat the position as stated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister:
"The existing understandings between the United Kingdom and the United States governing the use by the United States of nuclear weapons and bases in this country have been jointly reviewed in the light of the planned deployment of cruise missiles. We are satisfied that they are effective. The arrangements will apply to United States cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom whether on or off bases. The effect of the understandings and the arrangements for implementing them is that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/83; col 435.]
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it the Government's view that even at this late hour in order to reach agreement in the INF talks in Geneva the United States should show flexibility in the negotiations?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; and, as I indicated in the answer to one of the earlier supplementaries, we believe that the United States has shown flexibility. We have offered the zero level or an interim agreement which would provide for equality in warheads between the United States and the Soviet Union. Indeed, what we are seeking to achieve is a parity between United States and Soviet weapons at as low a level as possible.
Lord Morris: My Lords, would the Minister agree that this is one of the few occasions where we enter upon negotiations with the Soviets from a position of strength, and, judging by the reaction of the Soviet Government, does it not show?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, the whole intention of the dual track policy is that there will be deployment but that there will be a continuation of the negotiations.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Baroness the Minister agree that there is considerable public anxiety throughout Europe on this matter? Is she aware that the very substantial demonstration that took place in London and elsewhere on Saturday is evidence of that anxiety? Is she further aware that on that occasion there were a number of people under the banner of "Tories against cruise and Trident"? Having regard to all these things, will she use the Government's influence to see whether it is at all possible, even at this late stage, to secure an agreement which will prevent the necessity for the deployment of cruise and Pershing?
Lord Derwent: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that supplementary, as I am sure she will, does she feel that a Starred Question provides a suitable time for a full-scale debate?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, which I have given already, is that we are continuing to negotiate. We would all wish to have a successful conclusion to that, but until we reach a successful conclusion both cruise and Pershing missiles will be deployed.

British Shipyards: Delivery
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there has been any improvement in the last three months in the delivery performance of British shipyards building vessels and rigs for use on the continental shelf, enabling them to match foreign competition.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, only two deliveries have taken place in the last three months, both from the same yard to the same customer. One was slightly early and the other slightly late. No general conclusions can be drawn from such a short period.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply may I ask him whether there is any hope of this big £80 million semi-submersible rig at Scott Lithgow's yard being ready by the second agreed date, namely, next January? Can he say whether in fact Cammell Laird is out of the wood with regard to its troubles in particular the GVA 400 Sovereign Explorer which was eight months late last July when he answered my last question?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, these are matters between the individual customer and British Shipbuilders.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that we are continuing to lose orders to overseas yards because of the delays in British yards?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, my Lords; this is entirely true. The performance of British Shipbuilders is not as good as we should like to see it. A new chairman has just entered office and he is giving vigorous attention to these matters, but there is certainly a great deal of room for improvement.

The Arts and National Heritage: Sponsorship
3 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are examining the provision of additional incentives to encourage contributions from private sources towards the financing of approved initiatives relating to the Arts and National Heritage.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, business sponsorship of the arts is already running at a very encouraging level. Nevertheless my office is continuing to explore with the Inland Revenue and the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts whether there are further incentives which might be offered in order to attract even more support.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Conservatives' manifesto—the one presented to the public—promised to examine ways of helping the arts by giving tax concessions and so on to donors and contributors to public museums and galleries? Is he trying to take this a step further?
The Earl of Cowrie: My Lords, the Conservative Party's manifesto is never far from my thoughts, and I am glad to say that a number of improvements to the tax incentives available to individuals and companies in respect of the arts, have been introduced during the life of this Government. There was a VAT concession in respect of disposals from historic houses, and a guide to general systems of tax reliefs available to private owners of works of art of museum quality importance was published by my office in July 1982. I am anxious to take this further step by step.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that so far as the theatre is concerned, a sensible consideration of reducing the VAT impost may very well produce extra financial resources for the Chancellor and at the same time encourage the earning of invisible exports?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have to confess to being rather a hawk where VAT is concerned. The problem with VAT, which is a comprehensive tax, is to have any exceptions whatsoever.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that while it is extremely desirable to encourage private contributions and support for the arts in every possible way, the main support must continue to come from public funds, both national and local, and will he give us some assurances on that point?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have made it clear both in the House and outside it that I look upon any benefits that we can receive for the arts from private funds as being in addition to, rather than in lieu of, continued public support.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will confirm that the Government are not prepared to accept the Rayner Report—the second Rayner Report, that is—which proposed the direct funding of the Royal Opera House at Covent Garden and the Royal Shakespeare Company?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is referring to the report made to me on the funding of the Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company by Mr. Clive Priestley. I have now received this report, and it has gone out to
10
the arts bodies, to the Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company for consultation.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that however much easier it is made to get private sources to contribute to the purchase of works of art, and however more attractive it could be made to enable individuals to make private treaties with museums and gallaries, there is no substitute for an adequate purchase grant being given to the major national galleries and museums? Is the noble Earl aware that the asking price for a major work by an Old Master is now well in excess of the total annual purchase grant given to the National Gallery?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I tried to deal with the question of additionality (if I may put it that way) in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I am of course acutely aware of the high costs of great works of art on the international market. I have also to be aware, as I think the whole country is, of how very fortunate we are in this country in that so many great works of art remain here in both public and private hands.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in addition perhaps to incentives, will the noble Earl the Minister be prepared to take on board and consider that there are very many voluntary organisations which wish to be involved in aiding the arts, but find difficulty in getting launched? They are fairly confident that if they could get launched, they could provide reasonable wherewithal for the arts in general. Will the noble Earl be prepared to look at the proposition that voluntary organisations that could apply for some initial help would be considered?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to welcome a supplementary question from the noble Lord. It is precisely in order to meet his point that the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts has been set up. A vigorous and successful young director has taken over from Mr. Luke Rittner, and I am very confident that the association will be able to achieve the purpose that the noble Lord outlined.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, with regard to the national heritage part of this Question, is the noble Earl aware that the British Tourist Association has designated 1984 as British Heritage Year, and within that there is to be a Christian Heritage Year, drawing attention to the great traditions of the nation from the Christian point of view? Will the Government give publicity, encouragement and support, if not in actual financial form, to that particular plan?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is very nice to be asked for support of a non-financial character, and I give it most freely.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, with regard to trying to help to keep works of art in this country, which was alluded to by the noble Earl, will he consider increasing the in lieu percentage—the so-called douceur—from 25 per cent. to at least 50 or even 75 per cent., as recommended by the Select Committee of another place?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, of course we all like more, but the fact of the matter is that I have no evidence at this stage that the douceur system, as it is so called, is not working satisfactorily.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Mansfield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Maze Prison. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Young, who will repeat Statements on Grenada and the Lebanon; and this again will be followed by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who will repeat a Statement on the objectives for the chairman of British Rail.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Report stage of the Data Protection Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales will be taken.

European Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the qualification of electors at elections of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities, so as to extend the franchise to British citizens resident in other member states of the European Communities. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bethell.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2,
Schedule 1,
Clause 3,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 4 to 13,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 14 to 16,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 17 to 41.
—(Lord Elton.)
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it would seem to be the right time just to put in one plea to the noble Lord. I should like to suggest that in future he has some words with those who organise Government business,
12
so that on the first day that we return after a recess we are not faced with the Report stage of a Bill. I know that we were given long notice of this, but does the noble Lord not realise that those of us who do not live in London have great difficulty in examining the amendments that are put down to a Bill of this character in the week preceding our return, and that it would have been much better and the Bill could have been much better considered if the Government had postponed the Report stage at least for a day or two until we had had the opportunity of examining, and consulting together on, the amendments that we have been able to see only today?
Lord Elton: My Lords, of course I shall take on board what the noble Lord has said. I am quite accustomed to taking business on the first day and last day of every Session. It is easier if noble Lords are aware of what is on the Order Paper, but I dare say that the noble Lord could in fact have himself informed by post from the Printed Paper Office. Nevertheless, I shall pass the noble Lord's concern to my friends.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foster Children (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It consolidates certain enactments relating to foster children in Scotland. It is pure consolidation and is intended to make no change in the existing law. If your Lordships approve, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which will consider it and make its report to the House in due course.
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Definition of "data" and related expressions]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 24 leave out from ("performed") to end of line 26 and insert ("only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone during Committee stage. As your Lordships will recall, Clause 1(8) was introduced into last Session's Bill to exempt operations carried out on word processors solely for the purpose of text manipulation. The provision was generally welcomed, I think, when we discussed it in July, but my noble friend proposed an amendment to delete the reference to the actual equipment used in preparing the text of documents.
He argued that to speak of equipment designed for a particular purpose was too restrictive. Equipment never orginally intended to perform as a word processor might neverthless be used as one with suitable modifications to the software. He thought that a provision drafted solely in terms of the purpose behind the operations would adequately ensure that only word processing activities were excluded by the subsection.
I have to say that I gave my noble friend's suggestion a somewhat frosty reception last time. But we have nonethless given careful consideration to what was said at the Committee stage by my noble friend and by the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The more that we reflected, the more persuasive their arguments proved to be.
When the Government introduced Clause 1(8) we had in mind the purpose-built word processor which might or might not be capable of performing other functions. Clause 1(8) is therefore adequate to cover such equipment; but it is not, I now agree, entirely apt to cover equipment designed for entirely different purposes being used with the addition of new software for word processing activities. Yet, in data protection terms, the two situations are identical and ought to be dealt with in the same way.
The amendment therefore deletes the reference to equipment in Clause 1(8). As amended, the subsection will therefore exclude from the definition of processing any operation performed only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents. I ought to mention that when discussing my noble friend's amendment one argument used against it was that the deletion of the reference to particular equipment might encourage users to claim the exemption simply because the end purpose of their processing was to prepare documents even though the actual processing went beyond the manipulation of text. We have given careful consideration to this point and are now satisfied that the reference to an operation performed only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents should be sufficiently precise to avoid such abuse.
For these various reasons I commend this amendment to the House. I have had to start, upon the resumption after the Summer Recess, by eating a number of my words but the diet has not been entirely unpalatable. This only goes to show that the Government pay close attention to views expressed on all sides in your Lordships'House. I should like to express the Government's gratitude to my noble friend and to the noble Lords opposite for bringing this matter to our attention. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Those were sweet words to hear from the Minister at the outset of this debate. No one dislikes having his previously expressed opinions adopted by the Government. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will join me in that view. At the risk of seeming slightly sour after the sweet words, I have to say that in the opinion of my noble friends and myself this amendment is indeed necessary but it is not sufficient to rectify the difficulties that arise from subsection (8). In welcoming the amendment, it must be clear that we reserve our
14
position on the second amendment that is down for consideration by your Lordships.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord for having listened to our arguments. I share the hesitation of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in thinking that the amendment is sufficient, but it is certainly necessary.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it seems to me, from a study of the discussions that took place as a result of Lord Mottistone's amendment, that he had a point. I am delighted that the Minister has accepted it as valid and taken action at this stage of the Bill. I should like to ask one question for the purpose of clarification. If one has a system that is not primarily designed for word processing but is used in the normal course of a business for accounting and so on, and one uses text processing software on it, then that is the situation intended to be covered by this subsection, as I see it. The most common application likely to occur under the subsection is where the data user has the names and addresses of recipients of letters on file and he calls up those names and addresses for use in conjunction with pre-prepared text for the purpose of sending out an identical or similar letter to all the persons on the list. If he uses the names and addresses for that purpose and for no other, it seems to me that he would not be processing in relation to that data. I should he grateful if the noble Lord would confirm that my understanding is correct.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to apologise for not being in my place when my noble friend introduced the amendment. I thank him deeply for it. As my noble friend, I am sure, has told your Lordships, the amendment is similar to one that I advanced at Committee stage. I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there is one lesson to be learned from the opening words of the Minister. It is that one should not be put off by his frostiness and should realise that there is a sun that will melt the frost and that deep consideration will always be given in spite of a frosty reply.
I wish to make a last plea that the Government should realise where they are going. Word processing, by this amendment, has now been removed, for all practicable purposes from the need to register. This means only, of course, when word processing is being carried out purely for that purpose. The Law Society has tried to point out the limitations in a memorandum, issued subsequent, I believe, to its knowing of this amendment. The Law Society points out that "essentially word processing operations" are really word processing operations that sometimes mention names. The names will then be interpreted as being a data subject. It gives an example, which is very much within the experience of solicitors, of where,
"a legal precedent is retrievable from the storage system by reference to the name of the client for whom it was prepared, although the purpose of the operation is pure word processing in the sense that the text is required for adaptation to the needs of another client".
Because it is being retrieved by reference to the name of a client for whom it was originally prepared, it will be caught, in spite of the Government amendment now before the House.

15
Before sitting down I should like again, with your Lordships' permission, to remind the House of precisely where we are going by these all-pervasive registration requirements under the Bill. From these Benches we tried to relieve the duties of the registrar and the urgencies of registration for one category as against the non-urgency of others, by endeavouring to ask for a phasing. That was refused by the Government.
However, I wonder whether your Lordships realise that we are now in the position that we are about to go through the final stages of a Bill under which, for example, if some industrious cricket-loving schoolboy cares to put upon the school computer the names of the first and second eleven teams and against them the number of runs that they have scored in the course of a summer, then the school will have to register that computer. This is not just a reductio ad absurdum: it is legislation ad absurdum.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking noble Lords for their kind reception of what was intended as a kind gesture, and to confim to the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, that the interpretation of the effect of the amendment is as he said. I am grateful to my noble friend for his reception of the amendment and for relieving me, I hope for the rest of this sitting, from the crick in the neck which I got looking for him at the beginning of the proceedings.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has addressed himself to a wider issue, perhaps, than that touched on by the amendment itself. However, I understand that what the Law Society would want to exclude is the use of word processors to retrieve information about individuals. The noble Lord is making it clear that I have misunderstood him. I can only say that if that was what he meant it was not, of course, what we intended to exclude. Where a word processor is used as a word processor only for the preparation of text, then I think we are all agreed that it should be excluded from the Bill. That is the intention of the amendment, and as far as I can see it goes no further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.23 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert ("otherwise than by reference to data subjects")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the sour part of the clause, and I am afraid I cannot apologise to the House for bringing forward in slightly different wording an amendment which reflects a pervasive defect in the Bill. Indeed, that applies not only to this amendment but to other amendments that we shall be considering this afternoon, because we have here the first example of the inadequacy of the Bill to protect the data subject from unknown, unauthorised or unwanted onward transmission of information about himself.
We have to talk about the matter first of all in respect of word processors, because, as has been made clear by the earlier discussion on the previous clause and as was also made clear in Committee and when
16
the Bill was before your Lordships on the last occasion, the difficulties of defining and restricting the definition of a word processor are virtually insoluble. Indeed, in moving this amendment in the way in which we are putting it forward we are in effect accepting that there is not really going to be any way of defining word processors and distinguishing text preparation from the communication of data, which is what, on the whole, the Bill is about. Therefore, we are looking for protection for the data subject in a different way.
I should not have thought that this amendment would be too difficult for the Government to accept since the way in which we are looking to protect the data subject arises from subsection (7) of the same clause, where, in the definition of "Processing", there is used in line 21 the following phrase:
"performing any of those operations by reference to the data subject".
That is the intention of bringing the processing of data into the scope of this Bill and of removing it from statistical manipulation, calculation or whatever numerical work is done by data processors.
However, if it is true that this is the right way in which to bring processing into the scope of the Bill, and if it is true that the role of the data subject in relation to processing is best defined in those terms, then surely is it not even more true when we come to subsection (8), which is concerned with word processing? The difficulty that we have with word processing is that the very act of manipulating text can in fact also be used to communicate confidential information and to transmit onwards confidential information as the use of data. Therefore, if the word processing applications, which cannot he distinguished from other applications, are to be brought effectively into the Bill, then the phrase:
"otherwise than by reference to data subjects"
ought to be brought into it. In that way the registrar and the public are protected from the indiscriminate coverage of word processing, which none of us would want, and yet the data subjects—those who are in fact going to be concerned by the use of manipulated text—are still protected.
The point is not new, and I apologise for repeating it. Indeed, it has been made many times before. However, it has not lessened in efficacy and it has not been answered in any way by the Government spokesmen at any of the stages of the Bill. I would urge the Government, in the spirit in which they recognised the justice of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in reference to the last amendment, to consider again whether it is not entirely logical to have the same protection in this subsection, the same restriction, as they themselves have put into the previous subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am inclined to support this amendment although it is a little difficult to visualise exactly the conditions in which it would be necessary. I suppose that if one were using a word processor to prepare a report on the Maze Prison escape, for example, one would describe the type of things we shall doubtless hear this afternoon in a great deal of detail, and one could alter it as one went along and further information came in. and one would not mention names. That, I suppose, is really the point

17
that is being made. If I have understood it correctly, I think it is right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have tried very carefully to follow what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has been saying and what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has been supporting in amplification of this amendment. I hope that I am in a better position now than perhaps I was during the Committee stage to explain why I believe his fears to be unfounded. I then sought to reassure your Lordships that there was not anything in Clause 1(8) which would reduce the safeguards afforded by the Bill to data subjects, and I should like to reaffirm that view perhaps more precisely today.
What this subsection does is to exclude from the provisions of the Bill those staightforward word processing activities which are quite incapable of causing anybody any harm. There has been widespread agreement that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to apply the registration and other requirements of the Bill to such activities, and I believe that the wording as now cast, following the previous amendment, is the best way of achieving the necessary exemption.
Your Lordships will recall that users of word processors were concerned that even the preparation of a series of standard letters to different addressees could be regarded as processing by reference to the data subject. It would therefore be caught by the definition of "processing" in Clause 1(7), since there was nothing to distinguish between the activity involved in such an operation and the search for names in a computer's data banks. It is the latter activity which the Bill is more obviously intended to cover, but, because word processors can perform a wide range of tasks, we found that we could not exclude them as such. Instead we had to describe the particular activities which we wanted to exempt. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is at one with us there. Thus, to qualify for the exemption, the activity must be performed only for the purpose of preparing the text of documents.
If we were to add the words suggested by the amendment, the whole point of subsection (8) would be lost. What the amendment does is to allow the word-processing exemption to apply only where the text of documents is prepared otherwise than by reference to data subjects. But, if a user did not prepare the text of documents by reference to data subjects, he would not be covered by the definition of processing in relation to personal data anyway. So, if I may use a favourite technical word, the amendment is "otiose". If he did prepare the text of documents by reference to data subjects—in the way that I have described by my example of standard letters—then he would not be satisfying the additional condition placed on the application of subsection (8) by the amendment; and so word processors used simply for text preparation would be back within the scope of the Bill. However, where I can offer reassurance is in saying that, the moment a word processor is used for a purpose other than text preparation, then the benefit of the exemption is lost. I believe that this is the safeguard against the kind of abuse feared by noble Lords, and it is achieved without amendment to the clause.
18
I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord—and the definition within the definition is a very difficult concept—that subsection (8) does not require the protection that he has suggested and that he will not think it necessary to press his amendment. He is perhaps at the moment debating whether to consider what I have said at leisure by perusing Hansard to see whether it is satisfactory. I think that that is what I shall do with what he has said.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would mind a short intervention which may lead him to write to my noble friend, myself and any other noble Lord interested on the subject. Having listened very carefully to what the noble Lord the Minister has said, again I wonder whether the House realises (as I understand to be the case, but I may he wrong) that, if the Government Chief Whip decides on a word processor to send out a circular letter—and I assure the noble Lord the Minister that the same would apply to the Opposition Chief Whip—and that letter is to be worded in one way to Members of the Front Bench and in another way to Back-Benchers (and, therefore, on the word processor there is the indication that this goes out to the Front Bench and this goes out to the Back-Benchers), this would be caught by the Bill and the Opposition Chief Whip as well as the Government Chief Whip would presumably have to register. I ask this as a question and quite obviously I know that it will interest noble Lords administratively, logically and legalistically. Therefore, as I have said, if the noble Lord is not able to reply at the moment, I shall be grateful if he can do so between now and Third Reading.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the House will give me leave, I shall reply straight away. This is exactly the situation that we wish to avoid and that is why we have amended the subsection. Perhaps if the noble Lord himself would be kind enough to write to me exemplifying the way in which we have failed to do this I should be better able—I hope—to dispose of his misconceptions or, alternatively, to correct my own. However, the present state of play is that the amendment achieves what I have described without the subsequent amendment offered to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and I hope that he will not pursue it at this stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am struggling to comprehend the meaning of a definition within a definition. I am sure that there is something very subtle and searching in the words used by the noble Lord and, as he invited me to, I shall indeed study his words in Hansard rather than pursue this amendment now. But, in seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, I still remain to be convinced that the distinction he is making, the safeguard which he is offering us, is not in fact still dependent on a distinction between the processing of text and the processing of data. I believe that such a distinction cannot be maintained without there being some difficulty at the boundaries. That is why it may appear to the noble Lord and to the Government that we are

19
attempting to say the same thing twice in protection of the data subject. As Senator Goldwater nearly said:
"Duplication in defence of liberty is no vice".
Leaving it out in defence of moderation is no virtue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Maze Prison: Escapes
3.35 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The Statement is as follows: —
"On 25th September at approximately 2.45 p.m. a number of Republican prisoners produced guns in H Block 7 of the Maze Prison. They overpowered prison officers and shot the officer in the block's central control room in the head. They put on the officers' uniforms. About an hour later, still in control of the block, prisoners took over a meal delivery van on its arrival, and the prison officer driver was forced at gunpoint to drive 38 of the prisoners to the main gate of the prison. On the way the van passed through two manned gates without being searched. At the main gate the prisoners disembarked and a fight with prison staff ensued during which a number of prison officers received serious injuries and a prison officer was stabbed to death. I deeply regret his death, and know the whole House will join me in extending sympathy to his family. The prisoners opened the main gate, but the exit was immediately blocked by a prison officer's car. The 38 prisoners then sought to escape on foot and were chased by prison officers. As a number of the escaping prisoners were wearing prison officers' uniform, and some of the prison officers were in civilian clothes, the Army sentry in the tower at the main gate could not clearly identify which individuals were prison officers and which were prisoners. He did however open fire and wound one escaping prisoner whom he had seen shoot a pursuing prison officer in the leg. Ten prisoners were quickly apprehended and returned to the prison. Immediately the alarm was given, the RUC and the Army instituted very extensive arrangements both in the immediate vicinity of the prison and more widely throughout the Province.
"Immediate contact was established with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland, who readily gave their full co-operation. Within the next few days a further nine escapers were apprehended, leaving 19 still unlawfully at large. The search for them continues unremittingly.
"On the day following the escape, with the agreement of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I invited Sir James Hennessy, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, to conduct an inquiry into security arrangements at HM Prison, Maze, bearing on the escape on Sunday 25th September; to make relevant recommendations for
20
the improvement of security at the prison; and to report to me as soon as possible.
"Sir James, who arrived in Northern Ireland the day after the escape, is aided in his inquiry by a full team of Inspectors and by other staff of HM Inspectorate of Prisons, numbering ten in all. It is not yet possible to say when the report will be completed. The House will understand that the arrangements at the Maze are inevitably complex and there are a great many witnesses to be interviewed, some of whom are still recovering from injuries. However, I know that Sir James and his team are pursuing the task with urgency as well as with a view to its being as thorough and searching as it can be.
"When the report is complete, it is my intention to make public as full an account as possible of the matter consistent with the future security of the prison.
"In parallel with the start of Sir James's inquiry, all governors of prisons in Northern Ireland immediately undertook urgent reviews of their security systems and procedures. Both in the Maze prison and elsewhere there has been additional searching of prisoners, cells, prison workshops and other areas. The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army have assisted in searching prisons in line with long established procedures. Certain additional physical security measures are being implemented, including the provision of protective screens for the control rooms of each H block in the Maze Prison; and a more secure electronic locking system has been fitted to the main gate on a trial basis, which, if found satisfactory, will be linked to a specially constructed bullet proof control post. Other security measures are also being taken.
"The escape of so many prisoners and the killing of a prison officer represents a setback to law enforcement in Northern Ireland at a time when terrorist organisations have been under increasing pressure. The security forces will in no way allow the pressure to be relaxed because of it. The escape also adds to the already considerable difficulties in managing the prisons in Northern Ireland. I am anxious, in reporting to the House today, to indicate what action has been taken since the escape as well as to outline the facts of the incident as far as they can be established in advance of the Hennessy report. The House can be assured that we shall do everything possible to identify why things went wrong on 25th September, and shall take all appropriate steps in the light of those findings."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for repeating this Statement, and first from these Benches to join in his expression of sympathy to the family of the prison officer who was killed and to the other prison officers who sustained injuries. We are pleased to have confirmation of the appointment of Sir James Hennessy to conduct this inquiry into all the circumstances of this escape, and to know that he has a 10–man inspectorate team to assist in that inquiry. It will be appreciated that there is considerable public disquiet and that there are many important matters

21
about which we shall wish to have answers. It is not the purpose of this afternoon's discussion on this Statement to list these points. We shall naturally await this report with considerable interest and concern.
The Statement said that, commensurate with security, the Secretary of State will make public so far as possible all the details in the inquiry report. May I ask for an assurance that in addition there will be a debate in this House on this important inquiry report when it is made available? Although there are a number of important questions to be looked into by the inquiry, may I ask the Minister whether the circumstances of the escape give an indication that there has been any departure from the original objective in the way the Maze Prison was constructed? Has there been a departure from the original intention? Each part of the H block was for a compound system of segregation. Is the Minister able to say whether there is any information as to when H Block 7 was last searched before the mass escape?
We are pleased to learn from the Statement that the Republic of Ireland gave promise of immediate co-operation. Can the Minister give any information at all as to the suspected whereabouts of the other 19 prisoners who are still at large? Is there any indication as to the countries to which they may have gone? If so, what co-operation is promised by those particular countries?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I wish from these Benches—both of them, or all four of them—to echo the sympathy to the family of the prison officer who was killed, and to express our great admiration of the fighting spirit of the prison officers in the Maze, who are essentially on extremely dangerous active service, and one must never forget that. What it seems to me remains to be said today is simply that the key moment was getting the guns into Block 7. Once guns are in a prison anything may happen. That seems to be the key to which we shall look for the answer when the inquiry is finally made.
Beyond that I do not think that we can make any comments or ask any very intelligent questions. It is enough really to realise—and I hope the inquiry will assure us of this—that neither money nor staff are in any sense responsible for any of the shortcomings which may be revealed by the inquiry. That would be crucial, because if that were the case then governments are to blame. But if it is at a lower level than that, it is difficult to establish blame except on certain individuals. We await with interest the report, and we support the noble Lord's request for a debate in this House when we get it.
3.44 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for their welcome of this Statement. It is true, as I think both noble Lords said or implied, that not very much can be said until Sir James Hennessy produces his report. As to whether there should he a debate in your Lordships' House once that report is forthcoming, or such parts of it as my right honourable friend feels should be published, that will be a matter for the usual channels to discuss in the normal way.
22
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked in effect whether this escape implies any departure from the original intention when that part of the prison, the cellular part, was constructed. The answer is no. Quite obviously things went wrong—and I can say this without in any way pre-empting Sir James or his inquiry—in that prisoners were able to pass from one H block to another and eventually right to the gates of the prison. Of that we can be most sure. But I can assure the noble Lord that there has been no departure from the original strategy conceived when the prison was built, and the tactics under which the prisoners are kept there.
The noble Lord asks when was the last search of that particular block before the escape. I am informed that searches are ongoing and that there is no particular laid down régime, because if there was the prisoners would know about it and it would be a good deal less effective. The noble Lord aked where the other 19 prisoners are. A lot of people would like the answer to that question, and they would then do something about it. So far as the Republic of Ireland is concerned I can assure the noble Lord that both at Government level and particularly in respect of the attitude of the Garda there has been complete co-operation ever since this escape took place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, the key to the whole matter is the fact that guns were smuggled into the prison, and we shall no doubt look forward to Sir James's report in respect of that. But there was no question, if that was at the back of the noble Lord's mind, that any financial cutbacks either in staff or in the way in which the prison regime is maintained have been responsible for that. The financial and manpower resources available for prisons in Northern Ireland have not been reduced.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in view of the possibility that the events that took place at the Maze, the escape, could have wider implications bearing on the security of persons in other prisons who present particular security risks, will the noble Earl tell the House whether Sir James Hennessy has been asked in his report to make any recommendations regarding other top security prisons and the security risks that they may present in the future?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, Sir James is devoting his energies to the actual escape which he has been asked to investigate. I am quite sure that whatever comes out of his report will be studied with the greatest of care by the prison authorities and, insofar as it is applicable, will be applied in other prisons. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and he has enormous experience of this—that there are no prisons within the United Kingdom where we have such a high concentration of violent—one could call them vicious—prisoners, committed to a certain course of conduct. Therefore, it is unlikely that the conditions which pertain at the Maze would ever be reproduced in any other prison in Great Britain.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I ask the Minister for clarification of one question that I put to him with regard to co-operation from other countries? Is there any suspicion that some of these prisoners still at large

23
may have gone, say, to France or America? If so, have those or any similar countries been approached, and are they giving co
operation?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have no information about where these prisoners may have gone. However, I can tell the noble Lord that we have extradition arrangements with a great many countries and if the prisoners are discovered in those countries we will make every effort to have them extradited to this country, either on the basis of being escaped prisoners or in respect of the original crimes for which they were convicted.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
Schedule 1 [The data protection principles]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 31, line 39, at end insert (", used or disclosed.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may. I shall, with your agreement, speak to Amendments Nos. 39 and 42 together with Amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 39: Page 23, line 10, after ("not") insert ("used for any purpose other than that for which they are held or").
Amendment No. 42: Page 24, line 10, after ("not") insert ("used or").
Although the three are in somewhat different form, they all address the same central point and all represent a similar slight tightening up of the controls in the three parts of the Bill. All three amendments can be explained by reference to the distinction that the Bill draws between the purposes for which data are held—that is, the very reason that the user has the data—and the subsidiary uses and the disclosures which may be made of data. This is evident in the second and third principles, which deal separately with holding, use and disclosure, and in the registration requirements for data users under Clause 4. The three amendments relate to three areas of the Bill where it appears desirable to take proper account of the distinction between holding, using and disclosing in order to ensure that there is no loophole in the controls established by the Bill.
First, paragraph 1(1) of Part II of Schedule 1 provides that, in considering the first principle and fairness of collection, regard shall be had in particular to whether the source was deceived or misled as to the purposes for which the data are to be held. As your Lordships will appreciate from what I have said, against the background of the Bill as a whole, the reference to the purposes for which the data are to be held may not embrace subsidiary uses or disclosures of the data. But deceiving or misleading a person as to such uses or disclosures can obviously be equally important when considering fairness, and therefore Amendment No. 3 inserts a reference to use or disclosure.
A similar point arises on Clauses 31 and 32(4), to which Amendments Nos. 39 and 42 relate. As cast,
24
the exemptions provided in these clauses apply where the data concerned are held only for payroll and accounting purposes under Clause 31 or for preparing statistics or carrying out research under Clause 32(4) and where the data are not disclosed other than as permitted by those clauses. There is at present, however, no express restriction on the subsidiary use which may be made of these data. The amendments will remedy this situation and will make it clear that, in addition to meeting the requirements which I have already mentioned, the data user must ensure that the data are not used for purposes other than payroll and accounting or preparing statistics or carrying out research if he wishes to benefit from the relevant exemptions.
These are relatively small amendments, but they represent, I think, a useful extra degree of precision and clarification in the safeguards for the data subject under the various provisions concerned, and I therefore commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton: My Lords. I was counting on loquacity to give me a moment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, discretion is the better part of more than valour.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 3, page 32, line 24, at end insert ("but, in the case of such data as are mentioned in subsection (1A) of that section, this principle shall not be regarded as having been contravened by reason of any inaccuracy in the information there mentioned if the requirements specified in that subsection have been complied with.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if, with this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 22 to 24, 28, 44 and 45.
Amendment No. 13: Page 9, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) An enforcement notice in respect of a contravention of the fifth data protection principle may require the data user to take any steps that could be required by an order of the court under section 24(1) or (2) below.").
Amendment No. 22: Page 18, line 35, at end insert—
"(1A) In the case of data which accurately record information received or obtained by the data user from the data subject or a third party, subsection (1) above does not apply if the following requirements have been complied with—

(a) the data indicate that the information was received or obtained as aforesaid or the information has not been extracted from the data except in a form which includes an indication to that effect; and

(b) if the data subject has notified the data user that he regards the information as incorrect or misleading, an indication to that effect has been included in the data or the information has not been extracted from the data except in a form which includes an indication to that effecct.").

Amendment No. 23: Page 18, line 40, leave out ("Subject to subsection (4) below").
Amendment No. 24: Page 19, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment No. 28: Leave out Clause 24 and insert the following new Clause—
Rectification and erasure.
(24.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, if a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data held by a data user of which the applicant is the subject are inaccurate within the meaning of section 22 above, the court may order the rectification or erasure of the data and of any data held by the data user and containing an expression of opinion which appears to the court to be based on the inaccurate data.
(2) Where data accurately record information received or obtained by the data user from the data subject or a third party—

(a) no order shall be made under subsection (1) in respect of the data if the requirements mentioned in section 22(1A) above have been complied with; but

(b) if all or any of those requirements have not been complied with the court may either—

(i) make an order under subsection (1) above; or

(ii) make such order as it thinks fit for securing compliance with those requirements, with or without a further order requiring the data to be supplemented by such statement of the true facts relating to the matters dealt with by the data as the court may approve.

(3) If a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject—

(a) that he has suffered damage by reason of the disclosure of personal data, or of access having been obtained to personal data, in circumstances entitling him to compensation under section 23 above; and

(b) that there is a substantial risk of further disclosure of or access to the data without such authority as is mentioned in that section,

the court may order the erasure of the data.")
Amendment No. 44: Page 30, line 9, leave out ("24(b)") and insert ("24(3)").
Amendment No. 45: Page 30, line 12, leave out ("24(a)") and insert ("24(1) and (2)").
These amendments result from an undertaking which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee when he moved amendments to Clauses 22 and 24. My noble and learned friend said then that he thought that the noble Lord's amendments, which were, I must admit, a good deal simpler than those now before us, raised some valid points and that he would see whether they could be accommodated. The result of that undertaking is this lengthy and complex series of amendments which the noble Lord may have difficulty in recognising as the fruits of the small seed sown by him only a few months ago. His seed clearly fell upon fertile ground and has produced a plant the tendrils of which have spread well beyond the little plot in which it was sown, stretching as far as Clause 10 in one direction and Schedule 1 in the other.
The original plot, however, was Clause 22, to which Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 relate. That clause provides the data subject with a right to compensation if he suffers damage as a result of inaccurate data held about him. Clause 22(4), however, provides that, where the data have been received either from the data subject or from a third party and the user has marked them as having been so received, no liability to compensation arises. The noble Lord argued, with some force, that this did not go far enough to protect the data subject who applied for access to the data, discovered they were inaccurate and so informed the data user, who nevertheless retained the disputed data. On reflection, we think that the noble Lord is right. The amendment to Clause 22, from which all these other amendments stem, therefore provides that, where the subject does dispute the accuracy of received data, the data user will only be protected from a claim for compensation if he has marked the data not only to indicate their "received" status, but also to indicate that the subject has disputed their accuracy.
Moving on to Clause 24 to which Amendment No. 28 relates, the noble Lord will recall that, in response to another of his amendments, my noble and learned friend said that he thought that, where a subject had satisfied a court that received data were inaccurate, there might well be a case for giving the subject the
26
right to insist, through the court, that the data be amended to include a statement to that effect. On further reflection, however, it appeared that there were a number of different situations which ought to be catered for, and which might call for different responses from the court. What we have done, therefore, is to try to provide the court with sufficiently flexible powers to enable it to respond in the most appropriate way in order to protect the interests of the data subject. This has involved a recasting of Clause 24—hence Amendment No. 28.
The new clause provides that, where received data carry an appropriate indication, and, if appropriate, a dispute notice is also shown, the court cannot intervene. Where, however, "received" data are not so marked or where the subject has disputed their accuracy and the user has failed to record the dispute, the court is given the power to do a number of things. It may, for example, order the rectification or the erasure of the data: this is no doubt what it will do in most circumstances. Alternatively, however, it may decide to order that the missing indications should be included in the data or that a statement of the true facts should be included; or it may make both orders: that is, it may order, for example, the inclusion of a "received" status marker along with a statement that the received information has been shown to be inaccurate.
I hope that that makes clear to your Lordships the way in which the new Clause 24 is intended to work and explains what lies behind the changes. The remainder of the amendments may, I hope, be disposed of more quickly. The Amendments to Clause 40, which are Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, are of course purely consequential on the recasting of Clause 24. The more significant consequentials are the amendments to Clause 10 and Schedule 1, Amendments Nos. 4 and 13. It is part of the general scheme of the Bill that the registrar's powers should be consistent with those of the court. The amendment to Clause 10 is needed to ensure that, as well as being able to order the rectification of "received" data, the registrar is able, like the court, to order its erasure or the addition of appropriate markers, with or without a corrective statement.
This brings us at last to Amendment No. 4 to Schedule 1, which I originally rose to move. The effect of this amendment is to add a further gloss to the interpretation of the fifth data protection principle concerning accuracy, so as to provide that data shall not be regarded as inaccurate if they have been properly marked as "received" and any necessary dispute notice has been included. As a result, the registrar, like the court, is precluded from interfering with properly marked data. Although what we are seeking to do is relatively simple, the means of doing it proved to be rather complex. I hope that I have made them clear and I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has indeed cut a great swathe through a lot of amendments and paid due regard—for which we are grateful—to many of the matters raised by my noble friend Lord Mishcon.The only matter to which I wish to refer expressly at this stage is that Amendment No. 28 is, as the noble Lord will see, subject to an

27
amendment in my name and in that of my noble colleagues, but it may be convenient to discuss that matter when in the fullness of time we arrive at it. Otherwise, in so far as the amendments are by way of concession—if that is the right word—or agreement to what has been raised in different parts of the House, we are grateful.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister obviously has been employing his time to very good effect during the Recess. We warmly welcome what he has done here in the recasting of the clauses, and particularly Clause 24, which was necessary as a result of what had been put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so briefly in Committee. I want to ask him just one question and that is in relation to Clause 24, where the data subject can ask for rectification and erasure; and the noble Lord has described what happens if the data user fails to record the fact that he has received notice from the data subject that data is inaccurate in respect of him although it has been received in that form from a third party or from himself.
I wonder whether Clause 24 as recast prevents the data subject from going, first of all, to the registrar and asking for an enforcement notice to be issued under Clause 10—which allows the registrar, if he is satisfied that there is a contravention of any of the data protection principles, to issue such a notice to the data user.
The noble Lord the Minister has mentioned that what he has done here is to put a gloss on the fifth data protection principle which tells the data subject and user how that is to be interpreted. Presumably it also tells the registrar. Therefore, if the registrar is satisfied that the fifth data protection principle within the meaning now given to it by Clause 24 has been contravened he could issue an enforcement notice. This would be a cheaper and simpler procedure for the data subject who discovers that his correction has not been noted on the file than taking action through the courts. One presumes that that data subject would like, first of all, to go to the registrar and then, only if that is unsuccessful, to use the court procedures laid down in Amendment No. 24. If I am wrong in my recollection of how the system was supposed to work—which, of course, has not been altered by this amendment—I should be grateful if the noble Lord were to correct me.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder if the House will accept my apology for not being in my place when the noble Lord the Minister—and I ask him to accept my apology—was good enough, I understand, to refer to me in not too uncomplimentary terms. I am most grateful for the remarks which I know I shall read with pleasure in Hansard tomorrow. The only observation that, with the permission of the House, I want to make now is that there is something which I should rather like to raise on Clause 22 when we come then to his amendment. It is really no more than a question as to the meaning of the clause and the fullness of it. I wonder if the Minister and the House will allow me to refer to that matter when we reach Amendment No. 22.
Lord Elton: Yes, my Lords, I am perfectly content with that. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will find that I was just as friendly to him in his absence as I was to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in his absence. I wonder whether, after the next little break, I shall be saying the same thing again. Finally, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the data subject can go to the registrar in the circumstances which he foresees. Therefore, I hope that these amendments achieve in every respect what your Lordships wish, although the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and his noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones wish to discuss the matter when they reach their appropriate places.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Grenada
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on the situation in Grenada. The House will be aware of the violent events of last week on the independent Commonwealth island of Grenada. Her Majesty's Government join with those in the Caribbean region and elsewhere who have deplored the killings, and we view with grave concern the existing state of unconstitutional government and insecurity on the island.
"We are particularly conscious that there are some 200 British citizens on Grenada including a number of British tourists. The Resident Representative of the British High Commission has been active in maintaining contact with this community and reports that no British citizens appear to be in immediate danger. The Deputy High Commissioner also visited Grenada from Barbados yesterday to make contact with the new authorities and to speak with the Governor General. He found the island calm but tense and confirmed that neither the Governor General nor members of the British community appeared to be in any imminent danger.
"Nonetheless, the position remains extremely volatile. It is for this reason that Her Majesty's Goverment have instructed HMS 'Antrim' to be prepared to evacuate our community should the situation worsen and make this necessary.
"Meanwhile, we remain in close touch with the Governments of the other Commonwealth Caribbean countries, whose leaders have been meeting in Trinidad. We shall he discussing with them and with other interested states the best prospects of helping to achieve a restoration of constitutional government, peace and security in Grenada.
"I shall keep the House informed of developments."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Like the Government and the other Caribbean Governments, we deeply deplore and regret these tragic and unnecessary events. The Statement specifically refers to insecurity and volatility on the island. We are glad to have the report from the British High Commission that the 200 British citizens are in no immediate danger. Can the noble Baroness say whether there is any particular significance in the words "insecurity" and "volatility" other than that the constitutional Government has been overthrown by force? Are they in physical danger?
Is the noble Baroness satisfied that HMS "Antrim" alone can evacuate the 200 Britons who are there? Is she aware that we welcome the contacts which the Government have had with the other Commonwealth Governments? Are there any arrangements for a specific meeting, through, for example, the Commonwealth Secretariat, to discuss this matter; although, obviously, the Governments most closely concerned are those in the Caribbean itself with whom we are on the closest terms of friendship? Would the Government not agree that at this moment we should urge extreme constraint on the United States Government, in particular, given that they have 10 warships offshore Grenada and that we should do everything possible to ensure that the island is returned to a Government that is properly elected and protective of all human rights?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we on these Benches also agree with the Statement and are glad to learn of the steps that are being taken. Would the Government accept that, in finding a way out of this dangerous moment, three things might with advantage he borne in mind? First, Mr. Maurice Bishop seized power by force from his predecessor, Sir Eric Gairy, and he did so because the latter was a corrupt tyrant; and all human experience suggests that it is difficult to get out of a vicious circle like that once you have got into it. Secondly, whatever the political colour of the Governments of the Caribbean may be, it is difficult to say that one of them must not have a long runway and thereby attract tourism when all the others do, and that is not a reason for intervening in their affairs.
Thirdly, can the Government confirm an impression that has been put about by the press that although Cuba is deploring the overthrow and murder of Maurice Bishop, the Soviet Union is backing the apparent new regime? If that is the case, is it not a new turn of events and one that should not be unwelcome to us? Lastly, may I say that I am sure the whole House will be sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead and Grenada, is not here to add his words on this occasion.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for their responses to this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me first about security in Grenada. As the Statement makes clear, at present we believe that no British citizens appear to be in immediate danger; but if I take this further on a view about the regime, I think it would be only right to say that there are features of the reports about how the new regime came to power
30
which are deeply disturbing. But of course before taking any definite view we shall have to know more about the people and we can judge them by their actions.
On the point about HMS "Antrim", we believe that, should it be necessary, she could evacuate British citizens; but at the present time we understand that the Grenada Government will not put any difficulties in the way of those who wish to leave—tourists and other people—probably by charter flight. On the question of Commonwealth Governments and the Caribbean leaders, the noble Lord will of course appreciate that any exchanges with Caribbean leaders must remain confidential. We have not received any requests from the regional organisation in the Caribbean.
Regarding the United States Government, they have publicly explained that the movement of their naval task force into the area is prompted solely by the perceived requirement to be in a position to rescue any of their very sizeable community in Grenada. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised a quite separate point about the reaction both from Cuba and the Soviet Union.I can confirm that Prime Minister Bishop was a close friend and associate of Dr. Castro; and, not surprisingly, the Cuban Government have lamented his death and deplored the manner in which the new authorities have come into office. Their relationships with the new authorities, now that they appear to be in power, is however less clear. A considerable number of Cuban officials remain in Grenada. So far as the action of the Soviet Union is concerned, they do not yet appear to have taken a position on the recent events in Grenada, and I should not like to comment further on that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House deplores the violence on the island of Grenada and sends its sympathy to the victims. May I ask the noble Baroness two questions. First, will she state the Government's view that there should be no outside interference on this island whatever and that the British Government will give full support to any action which the Commonwealth Secretariat may take to mediate and assist in the reconstruction of a stable régime on the island of Grenada?
May I also take up the point which was mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Kennet. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the British Government have any aid scheme in connection with the Government of Grenada? If so, will she give an assurance that this will not be diminished in any way as a result of these unfortunate events? Further, have the Government learned any lessons from the contrasting attitude they have taken to the necessity for a civil airstrip in Grenada for social purposes and the airstrip which they have financed in the Turks and Caicos Islands for purely commercial reasons?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the first question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is that our consideration of the situation in Grenada is concentrated on political, economic and financial measures which might induce the present rulers in Grenada to restore the rule of law and good order to the island. The answer to his second question about aid is that we are providing no new capital aid to

31
Grenada, and disbursement of the very small balance of project aid remaining from earlier commitments is being reviewed. I do not feel that this would be an appropriate moment to comment on the airstrip in the Turks and Caicos Islands, which I think is quite outside the terms of the Statement; but if the noble Lord cares to put down a Question on this subject at a later time I should be happy to try to answer it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, could steps be taken to obtain such assurances as are possible to ensure the protection of the property of British subjects on the island, some of whom have lived there, as I know, for generations? Whatever can be done in respect of their rights and property I am sure will be very welcome.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that intervention. Clearly this is the kind of consideration which will be taken into account. I will certainly pass on what he has said to my right honourable friend.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with respect, the noble Baroness did not answer the thrust of my original first question. Would she take this opportunity to state the view of the British Government that there should be no outside interference in the political affairs of this island from any source, and particularly to use the influence of the British Government as a restraining influence on the Government of the United States?
Baroness Young: My Lords. I do not feel at this stage, in a very serious and complex situation, that it would be appropriate for me to go further than the Statement that I have already made on this matter.

The Lebanon
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Early in the morning of 23rd October, in carefully co-ordinated attacks, two huge bombs exploded in premises in Beirut occupied by United States and French units of the Multinational Force. At least 160 United States marines and 34 French troops were killed.
"The whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the United States and France and to the families of all those who lost their lives in this tragedy. We condemn without qualification those responsible for this hideous act.
"We have offered all possible help in the evacuation and treatment of casualties, both on the spot and in RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. We are in the closest touch with our partners in the Multinational Force and with the Lebanese Government.
"The safety of our troops is naturally uppermost in our minds at this time. The Commander-in-Chief United Kingdom Land Forces, General
32
Kitson, is going to Beirut to consider on the spot what may need to be done.
"I would like to pay tribute to the coolness and courage of our troops in difficult and dangerous circumstances. The staff of our Embassy in Beirut is also to be commended.
"The contributors to the MNF want one thing: the restoration of the Lebanese Government's authority and the independence of the Lebanon. Without the presence of the MNF contingents it is very doubtful whether the fragile ceasefire, agreed on 26th September, would have come about. Our own contingent, at the request of all the parties concerned, has been providing a guard for the meetings of the Security Committee set up to discuss the implementation of the ceasefire.
"National reconciliation talks are to open in Geneva on 31st October. In the light of this latest tragedy, it is now all the more important for all parties in Lebanon to get together urgently to settle their differences by negotiation".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, and we wish to join her in expressing our profound sympathy to the United States and France, and to the families who have been bereaved. We also deplore and condemn this terrible act, which contravenes all standards of civilised conduct. As the noble Baroness said, we are of course also concerned about the British troops in Lebanon at the present time, and their safety is very much in our minds. We welcome the fact that the Commander-in-Chief United Kingdom Land Forces, General Kitson, is to visit Beirut, and we shall be interested to hear what he has to say when he returns to this country.
Would the noble Baroness comment on the possible danger that the neutrality of the multinational force might be compromised, or could be compromised, by an over-partisan attitude towards the Gemayel Government, given that that Government is only one faction of a fragmented community? Is it not essential that the multinational force should in fact stand aloof from the different factions in that unhappy country?
Secondly, can the noble Baroness say a little more about the future of the British presence there? Would it not be advisable at the end of the day, if it is clear that the multinational force is not succeeding in its function, that British troops should be withdrawn at that stage? Further, would she agree that Syria is essential to the achievement of permanent peace in Lebanon? Could she say whether Her Majesty's Government have had any recent contacts with Syria, in the light of the importance of that country in the shaping of events there?
Lastly, in view of the alleged possible connection between this terrible incident and Iran, could the noble Baroness confirm that there is a move to bring the Iran-Iraq war before the Security Council of the United Nations? Is she aware whether or not there is truth in the report that the Soviet Union would not veto such a resolution before the Security Council?

33
Can she say whether Her Majesty's Government would support a move to have the Iran-Iraq war debated in the Security Council as a matter of urgency, in view of the possible connection between that war and what is happening in the region and this dreadful incident?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we on these Benches, too, should like to associate ourselves with the expression of sympathy to both the United States Government and the French Government as regards this appalling incident, and indeed to the relations of its victims. We should also like to express approval of the action of Her Majesty's Government in giving such instant help in the way of affording facilities for the wounded in Cyprus and elsewhere. That was very welcome.
But would the Government not agree—and this is embroidering something which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has just said—that the sole purpose of the multinational force is to help in keeping the peace during negotiations, and in no way to take part in what is a savage civil war? Up to now, I believe that the British and Italian contingents are to be particularly commended for having done their best to observe this rather fine distinction, but whether it will he at all possible to observe it for very much longer only the future and, indeed, the negotiations can tell. What seems certain is that the multinational force is in no way equipped, nor does it have sufficient strength, to participate in a war between rival and bitterly hostile factions.
What also seems unlikely—I do not know whether the Government would agree—is that there is any Soviet involvement in this affair. After all, we can judge the actions of the Soviet Government only by what we deem their interests to be, and we can hardly imagine that it would be in the interests of the Soviet Union, any more than it would be in the interests of the United States, to be committed to direct intervention in what is, after all, an international wasps' nest.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their response to this Statement and for the sympathies which they have expressed both to the United States and to France, and particularly to the families of the men who have died. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, commented on the need for the safety of our troops and this is a prime consideration at the present time.
It might be helpful, because both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised the point about the role of the MNF in Lebanon, if I confirm that its purpose is to give general support to the Lebanese Government and armed forces in the Beirut area. I understand that the British contingent carries out patrols on designated routes throughout the city and reports back to the Lebanese authorities on what it finds. More recently, the British contingent has had the important task of guarding the meetings of the Security Committee which has been discussing the cease-fire arrangements. What is clear is that the presence of the contingent is very welcome both to the Lebanese Government and to all the Lebanese communities in the city.
34
On the future of our force, we are not going to withdraw our troops; but when we agreed to participate we made it clear that we would not undertake an open-ended and indefinite commitment. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also raised the question of any possible negotiations with Syria, and I should like to confirm that we remain in contact with the Syrian Government. We understand some of their objections to the Israel-Lebanon agreement. They have legitimate security concerns, but these should be settled by negotiations with the Lebanese Government.
The noble Lord also asked me a question about the war between Iran and Iraq. I understand that this is currently being discussed at the United Nations, but I cannot comment on the outcome of this discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, also raised the question of responsibility for the outrage, and whether or not there was any Soviet involvement. The Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement, which is a previously unknown group, has in fact claimed responsibility. As yet, we do not know who they are or what their affiliations might be.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the anxiety felt by the wives and families of the members of the British contingent, would my noble friend arrange for an early Statement to he made after General Sir Frank Kitson's report as to the steps being taken to give them the maximum protection, and, in particular, as to whether the patrolling (to which she referred in an earlier answer and which sounded to some of us to be a very dangerous operation) is being continued?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I fully appreciate the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on this matter. As I said in the original Statement, the safety of our troops is a prime consideration, and that is why General Kitson is going to the Lebanon to look further at what arrangements might be made. As I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, it would not be in the best interests of our own troops in the force if any of these arrangements were made known publicly. However. I should like to give this assurance. The fact that important steps are being taken will get to the wives and families of our troops out in the Lebanon, who must, I recognise, be very worried at this time.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, is not one of the most important aspects of this business the finding of a location for the reconciliation conference to take place? Until this conference meets, are we not liable to have further incidents of this sort? My recollection over many years is that the Middle Easterners tend to produce very rough incidents of this kind when international meetings are about to happen. Therefore, would it not be in everybody's interests that our Government, and the other Governments concerned, should do everything they can to hasten on the Lebanese meeting upon which so much depends?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, is that the national reconciliation

35
talks are to open in Geneva on 31st October, so the timetable for those talks is, I am glad to say, quite soon.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, speaking for the Alliance a moment ago the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked if the Minister of State could confirm that the sole purpose of the multinational force was to help to put an end to the fighting, to keep the peace, to separate the combatants. The Minister of State then got up and said, "I can confirm that the purpose of the force is to help the Lebanese Government to reassert its control over the country". Can the noble Baroness really not see the difference between the two? I do not want to push her at this moment into taking one side or the other, but may I point out that there is a growing tendency on the part of the British Government to say that the purpose is to protect the present Lebanese Government and to help it to assert its control. Is there not a danger here? Is it not obvious that the quickest way to help the Lebanese Government to assert its control, if it really came to the point,would be to land very large armies and to drive all the factions back out of the country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I had hoped that in my response to the earlier question I had made clear what the role of the MNF in the Lebanon is, but perhaps I could add further to what I have said. The contingent is there at the request of and by agreement with the Lebanese. This is contained in an exchange of letters which was published as a command paper in the treaty series. Parliament has been informed of the subsequent extensions of the contingent's deployment. I should like to confirm that it is a peace-keeping force and that it is intended to support the Government of the country in the peace-keeping efforts.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the noble Baroness stated that the purpose of the MNF is to give general support to the Lebanese Government, did that exclude military support?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I really do not feel that I can add further to what I have said. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will know, the MNF is a peace-keeping force. There is a legitimate Government in the Lebanon. The purpose of the peace-keeping force is to give general support to the Lebanese Government and to try to help to keep the cease-fire and the peace in the Lebanon.
Lord McNair: My Lords, whatever the sole purpose of this force may be, may I remind the noble Baroness of a subsidiary function which it is in fact carrying out. If you drive through the Shatila Camp, every one or two hundred metres you see a sandbag emplacement, manned first by Italian and then by French soldiers. The House will readily imagine how reassuring this is to the inhabitants who are the survivors of September 1982. We can easily imagine what they would feel if they saw those troops being withdrawn. Therefore, may I ask Her Majesty's Government, in any discussions they have with our allies about withdrawal, to undertake not to withdraw until alternative arrangements have been made for this
36
protective role? In this connection, may I ask whether any move is envisaged to alter the mandate of UNIFIL, which might well take over this essential function?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated in my answer to an earlier supplementary question on the withdrawal of our contingent in the Lebanon, we do not intend to withdraw, but when we agreed to participate we always made it clear that this could not be an open-ended commitment. So far as the American forces are concerned, I understand that the Americans will reinforce their contingent to make up their losses. So far as the French and the Italian forces are concerned, I understand that they are maintaining their contribution.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.37 p.m.
Report stage resumed on Schedule 1.
Lord Digby Lord Digby moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Data Protection Advisory Committee

(".—(1) For the purposes of this Act, there shall be a Committee known as the Data Protection Advisory Committee (in this Act referred to as "the Committee").

(2) The Committee shall consist of:—

(a) a chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Secretary of State;

(b) Such number of members representative of data users appointed as aforesaid as the Lord Chancellor shall determine;

(c) such other members appointed by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with such bodies as he thinks fit, to represent employers, employees, data users, data subjects and other persons or organisations interested in the use and safeguarding of personal data.

(3) The Committee shall keep under review and advise the Secretary of State and the Registrar upon the implementation and enforcement of this Act and may report to the Secretary of State from time to time with proposals for any further or amended legislation, orders, rules or regulations which may seem to them to be desirable.

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall consult with the Committee before making an order, rules or regulations under this Act (and the report of the Committee thereon shall be laid before each House of Parliament).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to provide a statutory data protection advisory committee to keep under review and advise the Secretary of State upon the implementation and enforcement of this Act. The only reason that I have reopened this subject is that all the local authority associations are unanimous in their conviction that this advisory committee, or something similar, is essential. The local authorities are not only vitally affected but wholly behind the principles of the Bill. They are trying to be constructive and not obstructive. Put simply, my case is that this Bill is entering uncharted waters. Therefore, it is essential that the registrar should have informed advice from those who have to implement the legislation and be the first to appreciate the problems as they arise.
I now turn to the details of the amendment. It differs from previous amendments on the same subject in significant ways but it is designed to meet the objections of the Government. The objection of my noble friend Lord Elton at the Committee stage was that a statutory committee would lead to rigidity in a rapidly changing field, and that a free rein would be equally unsatisfactory. The amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, Amendment No. 12, at the Committee stage did not spell out the duties of the advisory committee. This amendment does detail its functions, so we must consider whether they are too rigid or too wide. The amendment says that the committee shall keep under review and advise the Secretary of State and the registrar upon the implementation and enforcement of the Act. This seems to me to be a clearly defined function which gives flexibility to change advice as technology alters. But any function would have to be relevant to the Act. Therefore, it is not too wide.
I believe we are all agreed that the registrar will need advice, but the Government do not want to spell it out in the Bill. However, I must tell your Lordships that the Government's resistance to this amendment has made the local authorities suspicious of our intentions. I tried my best to convince them that the Government only wish to keep down quangos. But I have not convinced them; nor have I entirely convinced myself. Perhaps my noble friend can convince us all and allay our fears. Advice from users most affected is going to be needed. An advisory committee in some form is necessary and I commend this amendment to the House.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment which seems, with respect, to be an evolution or possibly even emanation from our earlier attempts to deal with what we regard as the necessity of the provision of a data protection advisory committee. I have had a communication from the United Kingdom local authority associations indicating that a large number of local authorities support this proposal—the Association of County Councils, of District Councils and of Metropolitan Authorities, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Local authorities, after all, are one of the largest bodies of data users in the country and are responsible for the safeguarding of essential data related to sensitive areas, like social services, housing and education. It is very significant that they recommend that greater efficiency and integrity to what is proposed would be maximised by the creation of an advisory committee. I readily concede that what is now proposed is more satisfactory than what we originally considered.On the last occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was able to make the attractive criticism that what was then proposed was a "motor car without an engine". That has been remedied now; it is still a motor car but its functions and powers are clearly set out in the terms of Amendment No. 5; the membership structure is made flexible, the appointments are to be made by the Lord Chancellor, and the terms of reference are set out in wide and satisfactory terms, in my submission.
I ventured to indicate last time round on this matter that there is a precedent for what is proposed in what was done in relation to the drug scene. But the need, I
38
submit, is to set up this data protection advisory committee now when it would, I would imagine, be most needed by the registrar. He has to cover a very wide range of duties in highly technical fields, and the expertise that will be provided by people chosen in the way proposed by the amendment would, I should have thought, be of greater value to him now than when the thing is set up. I confess I have not been able to follow the reluctance of the Government to set this up now and not leave us behind with some vague promise of good things to come in never-never land perhaps. Therefore, I hope that this time there will be a more forthright and more determined attitude on the part of the Government to give effect to what is proposed now and not postpone it for some indefinite uncertain future. This is the time to act and this is the time to give the registrar the biggest protection.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I only want to say a few words in support of this amendment because I think the ground has been very adequately covered. I think the criticisms the noble Lord the Minister advanced on the previous occasion have been very thoroughly and effectively dealt with by the noble Lord who drafted this amendment.
There are two points I would add to what has already been said. One is to remind your Lordships that in the original proposals of the Lindop Committee it was recommended that there should be an advisory committee and nobody has ever satisfactorily refuted the arguments that were then advanced. As the noble Lord, Lord Digby, said, the registrar is going to want to take advice, and so is the Secretary of State, presumably. The only question is whether you set that out on the face of the Bill or whether you leave it to the kind of informal consultations that the registrar would otherwise be bound to have.
I do not know what the British Computer Society feels on this and I do not claim to speak for them, but I should have thought they would certainly recommend if they were asked—and it would be interesting to know whether the Minister has taken their advice—that something on these lines should be established. I dare say they do not want to put forward their own views in case it should be thought that they are pushing the functions of their members on a body of this kind. But certainly the BCS with its vast expertise would be capable of producing members who would be helpful in the early stages, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said.
I always prefer to have things set down in Bills rather than left to the whim of a Secretary of State or an official in a post which is being set up under legislation. So I think it is incumbent on the Minister to say why the advisory committee is not required rather than for those who have put this forward at each successive consideration of this matter to show that it is required. There is no doubt at all that there will be many and complex problems that your Lordships have not uncovered during the discussions so far.
I think the noble Lord the Minister is nodding, because he sees that, even between Committee and Report stage, ideas have been advanced which on careful examination the Government have found to be valid. These have led to important amendments being brought forward by the Government only this

39
afternoon. So who can doubt that after the Bill becomes law we shall be found to have omitted certain things or to have failed to take into account technological developments which had not been anticipated? It is to meet that kind of contingency that I believe that a body of this kind is imperative. So I hope that, in spite of the cold water which the Minister has poured on this on previous occasions, he will, invigorated by his absence during the Recess, be encouraged to reconsider the views which he expressed on the last occasion and will accept what Lord Digby is putting forward.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, when we discussed this matter in Committee I was persuaded absolutely by what my noble friend the Minister said, which was that expert opinion will be necessary—in fact I think three-quarters of his speech was devoted to that—but that he did not see any reason to have a statutory body. I must say I do not see any reason to have a statutory body. I know that my noble friend has been kindly conceding all sorts of things to me and perhaps to other noble Lords. Perhaps he will have changed his mind, but my personal view is that we have far too many statutory bodies.
There is going to be an awful lot of advice. There is advice coming to the Government right now through your Lordships. There are going to be all sorts of subsidiary bodies set up to look into this problem. Whatever advice the Government are provided with from within their own ranks, whatever advice the registrar is provided with within his own ranks, will be supplemented by outside advice of all sorts. The question is why do we need to have a statutory body included in the face of the Bill as something that has got to be there whether you want it or not? And how is its advice going to be superior to that which will be coming from other sources? I would have thought that this was overdoing it and that the amendment was unnecessary.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords. I think there is one brief answer to the noble Lord, whose views we listen to often with respect. While it is true that the Government have been inundated with advice for the last several years, there is little sign that they pay any attention to it. Our belief is that, if the advisory body is statutory, much additional weight will be given to its advice and the Government may possibly be inclined to pay more attention to it than they otherwise would.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, one could add an objection to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, of the Government's obduracy, which is, I hope, only temporary. Clauses 3 and 4 actually say what the advisory bodies should do. This does not apply to the millions of people who are giving advice. They have no limitations or instructions and, if one has a body which tells one what to do and which also must be consulted before changes are made, that is something very different from what the noble Lord says we have already.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may add to the general fulminations which have been directed at the noble
40
Lord, Lord Mottistone, after his early triumphs over the Minister, may I just say this? There is no point in setting up committees unless one pays respect to the research they do and their findings. The Lindop Committee spoke upon this matter. It said that there ought to be a statutory advisory council. It said that it was necessary very specially—I am paraphrasing its words—because we were dealing with a fast evolving situation in technology and, therefore, it was very necessary to see that there was a completely running advisory council which would not just be there for a day or a year but would be sitting in session to see exactly what was happening in this field, which would be changing week by week and year by year—I often think that it is a minefield in which we are operating—which council, as has been said, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and by my noble friend as well, would have the statutory dignity which will be given by this Bill.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: And authority, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: And authority, my Lords, as I am reminded by the very helpful suggestion of my noble and learned friend. Advisory councils, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, can of course be set up. They are voluntary bodies. One does not know who their personnel will be, who will be the nominating authorities and, indeed, what work they will do. The amendment very clearly sets out who the responsible appointing bodies will be in order that this advisory committee—I repeat, recommended by Lindop and, so far as I can see, encouraged, too, by the White Paper that was issued by the Government—does have proper authority.
The weakness in the past has been overcome by the amendment presented to the House today. There were, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, weaknesses in the previous amendments which came before the House. In my view, it would be quite wrong if with this very comprehensive and limited amendment the House were to refuse this almost last opportunity of incorporating that advisory council so necessary to the registrar and so necessary to the Government in this very difficult field.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Digby for his explanation of the amendment and the concern that lies behind it in his attempt to snatch another stage of this Bill between the quickly succeeding Statements we are having to cope with this afternoon.
I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we have given this proposal very close consideration and I can remind the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that we have taken careful note of advice given to us, not only at this stage but in other stages of this Bill and, indeed, in the last Parliament. It is, therefore, a little unkind to say that we are obdurate in never listening to what we are advised to do. But we do have to exercise judgment on what we are advised to do, and we do not always agree with that advice. That, of course, will be open to the data protection registrar as well.
In one respect we and those who share my noble friend's anxieties are entirely at one. In that respect, I

41
can give him and them the assurance for which they are asking. We are absolutely agreed that the data protection registrar will require a considerable volume of expert advice drawn from a wide variety of people with different experience and divergent interests. To that I can only say. "Hear, hear". But where we differ, we differ not in principle but in practice, and I blame myself very much for not, it seems, having made this abundantly clear on earlier stages of the Bill. The difference is a wide one and must apply to any amendment of this nature and I may, perhaps, have concealed the general by dealing too much with the particular on earlier stages. Let me then deal with the general first and the particular, very briefly, afterwards.
A statutory body is created by legislation and it can only be changed by legislation. Legislation, as we are, I suppose, engaged this afternoon in proving yet again, is a ponderous engine that cannot often be applied for the same purpose. Once one has a statutory body, therefore, in whatever form, one is stuck with it and its terms of reference. One is stuck with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, helpfully reminded us, in a field occupied by very fast evolving technology and, therefore, fast changing and evolving problems. To suggest, as I think was done at an earlier stage, that changes could be made by subordinate legislation is, I am afraid, only half an answer. Where we part company with those who favour this amendment is on whether we should in law set up a quango to issue the advice that predetermines the occasions on which this advice is to be sought. I am much obliged for the welcome support of my noble friend Lord Mottistone in this respect. In other words, is an effective scheme of data protection best served by legislating for an advisory committee, or would we be better off leaving the registrar and the Secretary of State a free hand to take advice as the circumstances merit and from whomsoever is best placed to provide it?
In the course of our discussions of both this Bill and its predecessor we have been offered a variety of forms of advisory comittee for our consideration. I regret that not one of them has seemed to us to be satisfactorily designed. That is not a reflection on the skill of the architects of the proposals; it is an indication of just how difficult—I might even say how impossible—it is to foresee the circumstances in which advice may be valuable and to legislate precisely for those circumstances in advance. For example, my noble friend's amendment gives his committee the job of advising, broadly, on the state of the law, on possible amendments to it, and on subordinate legislation to be made under the Data Protection Act. I accept that the formulation that my noble friend has used, advising on the "implementation and enforcement" of the Act, does go pretty wide. But can he be sure that that will cover every possible circumstance in which the registrar may want advice? I am not saying it will not. I am simply doubting whether we can foresee everything. And, if there is a statutory committee with a remit that turns out not to extend to giving advice in the particular circumstances that present themselves, what will the registrar do?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the registrar wanted some advice which was not covered by the wording of
42
the amendment, why could he not take it informally as he would have to do anyway in the absence of such an amendment?
Lord Elton: My Lords, to use a metaphor which may not appeal to the nobleLord, he is hunting a little ahead of the hounds, but only a yard or two. I was about to come to that. That is the exact question I am asking. If there is a statutory committee with a remit that turns out not to extend to giving advice in the particular circumstance, what will the registrar do? He will surely be reluctant to ask the committee to go beyond its statutory remit and the committee will be equally reluctant to go beyond the duties and powers voted to it by Parliament.
Is the registrar to overcome that reluctance and to ignore the statutory advisory committee and seek advice elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, very sensibly suggests? If not, the net result could be that the existence of the statutory committee would discourage rather than encourage the taking of advice. But if he does, surely in that case he will be doing just what we expect him to do in every case if there is no statutory body. So, by solving the problem in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, cogently suggests, and which is in fact the only way that will be open to him, he will be proving that the committee need never have been created, because he will be getting the advice anyway.
Lord Avebury: A flippant illustration.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not a flippant illustration; it is a very real one. If the man is to have a statutory committee charged with giving him all his advice, either he gets all his advice from it or he gets some from elsewhere; but if he can get advice from elsewhere, there seems to me little point in having the statutory body.
Let me take another example. With my noble friend's amendment, let us assume that perhaps 12 or 20 members are appointed to the committee, representing employers, employees, data users, data subjects and others as proposed.Once a statutory committee is established it must be the prime source of advice. I take it that that must be the purpose of the amendment, otherwise it is without purpose. But suppose the registrar faces an especially tricky question regarding a potential or alleged breach of the principles by a user operating in a particular field; and suppose the registrar wants some advice based on first-hand experience in the field concerned; and suppose further that the Lord Chancellor, for all his undoubted wisdom and foresight, has appointed 12 or 20 members of great eminence, but because of the competing demands for membership from so many different professions and disciplines—and data users will proliferate until they cover every discipline, trade and branch of commerce—he had not been able to find room for a person with quite the right experience to shed light on the problem the registrar urgently needed help on.
I suppose there is a third course. The registrar or the chairman of the advisory committee could ask the Lord Chancellor to appoint another member to the committee to make good that deficiency, and another,

43
and another, as each occasion arose. But suppose both the Lord Chancellor and the proposed recruits were available easily enough, and the business of appointment to the committee was crisp enough for the new members to be appointed in time to give their advice. I do see a certain oddity to the proceedings. First, can a committee recruiting new members for perhaps the majority of its agendas function as a committee at all? Secondly, what will be added to the advice of the new recruits of such importance that the registrar should be prevented from receiving it until they are appointed? Will they be allowed to give it before appointment? If so, why do they have to be appointed at all? If they are not, and if they cannot be got on to the committee to deal with the relevant matter before it has to be disposed of, again the statutory committee would prove to be either counter-productive or superfluous.
Once a statutory body is set up, it must be that body from which advice is taken, and that body must abide by its predetermined terms of reference in giving advice. Why we have reservations about a statutory body in the data protection context is because we cannot foresee with sufficient precision what the most appropriate terms of reference will be: nor can we be sure that the members of that body once appointed will be best suited to offer the most helpful advice in every circumstance. We therefore fear that a statutory body is unduly inflexible. Better to leave the registrar—and the Secretary of State—to decide for themselves whom to go to for advice in the light of the particular issue on the particular occasion. That will ensure that they retain the freedom to go to whomsoever is best placed to be helpful.
So much for the general principle. I am sorry if I have dwelt on it for some time but this is not Committee stage. I cannot return and I am going to say it all. There is little more to say because I have dealt with the general principle. I promised also to comment briefly on the detail of the amendment. It seems decidedly odd that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be asked to appoint the committee. It is not after all a judicial body. For all his wisdom and expertise, I am sure that my noble and learned friend would be the first to point out the inappropriateness of his appointing people to represent data users and subjects, employers and employees. Secondly, Iam puzzled by the duplication between paragraphs (b) and (c) of the new clause. Paragraph (b) requires representatives of data users to be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State; but then paragraph (c) requires more representatives of data users to be appointed after consultation with
"such bodies as the Lord Chancellor thinks fit".
I am not certain if that is intended. Finally, there is a strange itemisation in paragraph (c) of employers, employees, data users and data subjects. I think that one would be well advised to probe carefully what is to differentiate between employers and data users or between employees and data subjects. But these are minor points. My major difficulties with the amendment are those to which I have already referred at some length. Because of these I am reluctantly unable to support my noble friend's amendment.
44
I will in conclusion make one thing yet again abundantly clear. I am not objecting to the amendment because the Government do not think that the registrar will need advice. Quite the contrary. We believe he will need, and take, copious advice from a wide range of very expert people. We object because we think that on balance what is now proposed will limit his ability to get the advice rather than increase it. On that I can give my noble friend an assurance that that is not our intention. I hope therefore that if he withdraws the amendment he will take the opportunity to reassure those who have exressed concern to him outside the House that we have every intention that the data registrar will take at least adequate advice in every circumstance.
Lord Digby: My Lords, I cannot accept that this amendment limits the advice that can be given, which is the whole basis of my noble friend's arguments. He says that there might be a particular expertise that was not represented on the committee. No committee can have expertise from every field. If a particular expert witness is required, the registrar will still be perfectly capable of obtaining the advice. I still do not understand the Minister's objection to the general principle. I believe that this committee is necessary and I—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not doubt that I am being stupid in this, but the noble Lord has said that of course the committee will not have every sort of expertise and of course the registrar will get advice from the right experts when they are not on the committee. Therefore, what he has not now convinced me of is why we need to have the committee at all.
Lord Digby: My Lords, the registrar needs the statutory advice, in my opinion: a committee laid down for that purpose which will come into effect. It can always be said that anyone can take whatever advice he likes. Presumably the registrar can set up a committee of his own. But we have had no particular assurances from the Government as to what form that committee would take. I must admit that I feel that we have not had the assurances that we should have had.
5.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale. L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Avebury. L.

Collison. L.

Barrington, V.

Cooper of Stockton Heath. L.

Beaumont of Whitley. L.

Craigavon, V.

Birk, B.

David, B.

Bishopston. L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Blyton. L.

Digby, L. [Teller.]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Briginshaw. L.

Elwyn-Jones. L.

Brockway, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Byers, L.

Gaitskell. B.

Chitnis. L.

Gallacher. L.

45

Gladwyn, L.

Ogmore, L.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hanworth. V.

[Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rhodes, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hooson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sandford, L.

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Jeger. B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Simon, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stone, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Tordoff, L

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

Longford, E.

Whaddon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Molloy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Alport, L.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Avon, E.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Mansfield, E.

Caccia, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marsh, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Melville, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Croft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Daventry, V.

Northchurch, B.

Davidson, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orkney, E.

Derwent, L.

Pender, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Portland, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elton, L.

Reigate, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Renton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gisborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Glanusk, L.

Seebohm, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Soames, L.

Grantchester, L.

Spens, L.

Gridley, L.

Stamp, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathcarron, L.

Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathspey L.

Hayter, L.

Swinfen, L.

Headford, M.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Holderness, L.

Terrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L,

Teynham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tranmire, L.

Inglewood, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kemsley, V.

Vickers, B.

Kilmany, L.

Vivian, L.

Kimberley, E.

Westbury, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Whitelaw, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

British Rail: Objectives for the Chairman
5.16 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with permission, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have listened carefully to the wide public debate on the Serpell Report and in particular to the views of the Select Committee on Transport. What emerges strongly from that debate is that it is for the Government to give the railways a clear framework and objectives, and for the British Railways Board to direct and manage its business in the light of them. Accordingly, I have today sent to the chairman of the board, Mr. Reid, a statement of the objectives which the Government wish him to pursue. Copies are available in the Vote Office and I will arrange for it to be published in Hansard.
"An efficient railway has a vital part to play in the transport system, but it must give its customers value for money. By giving customers the services they want at a reasonable cost, the railway can secure its own future, and the people who work in the industry can feel pride in their work. British Rail has already begun to introduce really significant improvements, to which I want to pay a warm tribute. The firm objectives I am now setting are designed to further that process.
"The board's latest corporate plan is clearly going in the right direction and the objectives I have set Mr. Reid build on it. In its 1983 plan, the board envisages a requirement for central government grant of about £635 million (in 1983 prices) by 1988. I am setting the chairman the objective of achieving that target—a grant requirement of £635 million in 1983 prices—two years sooner.
"The objectives I have set for the chairman make plain that it is not our intention that the board should embark on a programme of major route closures. This puts paid to the scare stories about the network, about which we heard so much following the publication of the Serpell Report.
"This does not rule out the board proposing changes locally, where they make sense. It is for the chairman to consider new forms of guaranteed and subsidised substitute bus services, where appropriate on local transport and value for money grounds.
"The freight, parcels and inter-city businesses can and should work to a commercial objective. The Government believe that rail freight has strong environmental advantages over road freight. So we want as much freight as possible to go by rail, within the financial target for the business, which is to achieve a 5 per cent, return by 1988. The scheme of Section 8 grants for rail freight facilities will continue.
"The board's plan envisages an increase in investment from present levels. I shall support worthwhile investment which relates directly to the financial and business objectives we have set.

47
"The railway is operating in a highly competitive market. So it is to the board's advantage to obtain rolling stock wherever possible by competitive tendering and to rationalise excess capacity within BREL as soon as possible. I have asked the chairman to complete by the middle of next year a review of the options for the future of BREL, including the operations for privatisation. All the options will be examined on their merits.
"Greater private sector finance and involvement can help to improve services for customers and keep down costs. I have therefore called on the chairman to continue to seek greater private sector participation in the development of the railway.
"The statement of objectives confirms the Government's intention to privatise Sealink, and it also calls for improvements in the railway's industrial relations machinery. With these objectives, the way is clear for the board to manage the railway so that it gives the country the good quality, efficient, service which we all want."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating this further Statement today, and also for letting myself and, I assume, other Lords concerned have a copy of the Secretary of State's letter to the chairman of the board, which fills in some of the gaps in the Statement. I find both the Statement and the letter to the chairman of the board disappointing except for the reference to the fact that the Government will not be pressing for a programme of major route closures.
Naturally, all of us want to see an efficient railway system, but in this Statement there is little encouragement for British Rail. So many points arise that it would require a full-scale debate on the position of rail in our transport system to deal with all of them. I shall take just a few. Why is there nothing in the Statement about investment except, in the letter to the chairman of the board, a trite statement that the Government will be sympathetic to any request for investment for financial and business objectives? There is no reference to a consideration of investment on social or environmental grounds.
Why is there nothing in the Statement about electrification? Your Lordships will recall that the Serpell Report dismissed main line rail electrification in one brief paragraph. Why does nothing appear in the Statement? The objective of the Government as to the public service obligation grant is to reduce the grant so that it takes effect two years earlier than the board envisages in its corporate plan; but the intervening years between now and 1986 will also present problems. Can the Minister confirm that a Statement has been made in the other place today making a cut already in the PSO for the ensuing year? Does that not present serious problems?
The Statement refers to freight services. Do the Government reject clearly the negative attitude of the Serpell Report towards the board's proposed expansion of the Speedlink freight operation service? Will the Government support greater devotion of resources to Speedlink as urged by the board itself? Do
48
the Government reject the references in the Serpell Report to the board continuing only with the minimum possible levels of rail safety? Do the Government accept the need for track renewal and replacement of rolling stock? If so, how is this to be achieved?
The Statement refers to possible privatisation of BREL, and urges the advantage of obtaining rolling stock wherever possible by competitive tendering. Does this not ignore BREL's expertise and export potential? Do the Government reject the suggestion in Serpell that rails and rolling stock might be obtained from overseas sources? There is nothing in the Statement confirming that.
Reference is made to Sealink. Is it the intention of the Government that the ferry services will be sold separately? Or is it intended that both the ferry services and the docks will be proposed together? One is tempted to ask whether all the proposals on privatisation in this Statement might not meet the same fate as the Government's withdrawal of the private testing of heavy goods and passenger service vehicles, on which we have had no Statement whatever.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we are also grateful that the Statement has been repeated in this House. It is an important document. As already indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, it covers a wide range of issues, which makes it difficult (as the long list of questions that he has put shows) to handle a Statement of this sort in this way. I hope there will be an early opportunity to debate this whole subject, not just in relation to objectives of the chairman of British Rail but also the inter-relation between them and some sort of transport strategy for this country in the future.
British Rail will be glad to have some indication of the objectives that the Government wish to set for it. I doubt, however, whether they will be happy with some of the objectives in the Statement and the letter. We welcome the words on Serpell in paragraph 4. The paragraph is carefully phrased. It says that—
"It is not our intention that the board should embark on a programme of major route closures."
Do the Government really mean that, or does the wording mean that the board should not embark on a major programme of route closures? There is a difference.
Does the Minister really believe that this Statement and the letter to British Rail will convince British Rail and its employees that there is a secure future for the railways that is both stable and hopeful? Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I find the Statement very disappointing.
Does the noble Lord not recognise that the absence of any support for a significant electrification programme, which many of us have been awaiting for a long time from the Government, and the fact that there is still relentless pressure towards privatisation—in many ways, apparently, for its own sake—together with the overriding monetarist flavour of the document, make it an extremely disappointing and almost despairing document?

49
When we turn to industrial relations, mentioned in the letter to the chairman, does the noble Lord not agree that the greatest help to industrial relations on the railways would be to improve the morale of everyone involved by giving them some hope for stability, for a dynamic future and for development?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his response, although I was a little disappointed by it. I am more particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his response. I should like to deal with some of the questions that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, remarked that a Statement of this kind is very difficult to deal with, and that we should discuss it at greater length at another time. I am sure that the noble Lord recognizes that any arrangements along those lines must be made through the usual channels.
I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport made an announcement in another place earlier this afternoon in regard to the PSO grant for this current year, 1983, in terms of £819 million plus adjustments. So far as the reduction of PSO by 1986 is concerned, the figure of £635 million is that which is contained in the board's own report and it was only after very careful consideration that the department came to the conclusion that a reduction to this figure, as set by British Rail for 1988, could in fact be achieved by 1986.
As regards the particular question on Speedlink, it is really for the board to develop Speedlink within the targets for the freight sector as a whole. It is a question of this type and an answer of the nature that I have given that demonstrate quite clearly the distance that the Government wish to have between themselves setting the objectives, and the board itself managing the railways in accordance with those objectives. It would not be right for the Government to say exactly how Speedlink should be integrated.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about rail safety. There can be no question—and I said this when we discussed the Serpell Report earlier in the year—of any reduction in the standard of safety. In fact the chief inspector's report which is to be published very shortly will show that last year has been one of the safest years on record. It would be the Government's intention and, indeed, the board's intention to ensure that such a safety record is maintained.
As regards rolling stock, it must be good sense for the board to be able to look at all avenues and all areas for replacement of stock. That BREL has expertise, there is little doubt; that BREL has excess capacity, there is also no doubt. So it is not here a question of privatisation as such of BREL. Indeed, the Statement does not say that; what it says is that BREL has to be looked at, and where other privatisation can be achieved with greater efficiency and at less cost to British Rail, then that should be done.
I can only repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in slightly different terms that which is contained in the Statement with regard to route closures—namely, that this Government stand by the manifesto commitment about there being no programme of major route closures. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, also mentioned industrial relations. It is a fact that much of
50
the industrial relations agreements and arrangements are over 30 years old. There have to be changes in the industrial relations machinery but those are of course for the board and the unions to negotiate. It has been widely recognised that the present arrangements are inadequate to cope with the need for rapid and smooth change. The previous chairman of the board in fact described the present industrial relations as being "too damned slow." That is why the statement of objectives calls on the board to secure improvements in this area.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what proof he has that privatisation will increase the efficiency of the railways? I see absolutely none on these lines.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, does not see any improvement opportunities offered by privatisation. I cannot offer proof. What I can offer is the view that privatisation is another means whereby the same, similar or a better service might be provided. It is for the board to look at the opportunities where greater efficiency and lower cost—in other words, a better service to the customer—can be achieved by this means.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, the Minister has proved to me that he cannot say that privatisation will improve the railways in any way at all.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister is old enough to remember privatisation. It is not very long ago since the railways in this country were all privatised—
Lord Mottistone: Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I do not have to ask a question; this is a Statement. Does not the noble Lord realise that the nationalisation of the railway network in this country has brought great benefits to the traveller? I want to ask him in particular whether he would expand or explain what seemed to me to be a specially menacing reference to the Conservative Party's manifesto. When he talks about there being no major route closures, those of us who live in the rural areas begin to get very concerned. It is not the major route closures that we fear. We are already suffering and have suffered for many, many years from the Beeching cuts and the minor route closures which still continue. Can the noble Lord tell us specifically where the Government stand on this matter? Do the Government regard the rural railway system as a public service for the social good of the rural inhabitants, or do they regard it solely as a commercial venture which must pay its way? If they take that latter view then further closures in the rural areas are inevitable.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby for his very flattering remarks and so I will take shelter behind them and say no. Provincial services, which take care of the rural services, the cross-country services—all those services which are not in London or the South-Eastern sector or Inter-City—take up by far the most of the PSO grant currently put at £819

51
million for this year. So it would be quite wrong for there to be any assumption that the Government see the rural services as having to make a profit: that is not so. It is for the board itself to determine where such services are uneconomic and can be substituted in another way by other services.
The noble Lord referred to Beeching and the cuts. In the suggestions which we discussed when we debated the railways and Serpell, there were further guarantees with regard to any substituted service. It will be for the board itself to arrive at its conclusions and to present them to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for approval in the event of any closure.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in his letter to the chairman, the Secretary of State says that Sealink will be privatised as soon as possible. Is the noble Lord aware that in a letter to me three weeks ago Mr. Tom King, who was then Secretary of State for Transport, said that Sealink would be privatised before the end of this year? I assumed that that referred to this financial year and not to this calendar year. So if Mr. King was right, Sealink could be privatised before the end of April. I wonder whether the noble Lord could first clarify the position and tell us precisely what the Government have in mind? Secondly, would he deal with the question put to him by my noble friend when he asked whether ships and docks were to be privatised together or separately? Can he say whether the Government still intend to privatise Sealink as a whole or in part? Will it be possible, for example, to separate the Welsh ports from the English ports? Is he aware that there is a great deal of disquiet, worry and concern in Harwich, Holyhead, Fishguard and all the other Sealink ports because of the uncertainty of Government policy on this issue?
Would he ask his right honourable friend to go further than this tenuous letter and to publish a proper White Paper on privatisation, indicating precisely what is to take place in the railway ports of Great Britain, which have a long tradition of service to the nation? Is he aware that they do not deserve the treatment which is being meted out to them by the Government?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will forgive me if I say that I had no knowledge of the letter to which he refers. The noble Lord will of course accept that, to us in the department, there have been fairly traumatic changes in the last fortnight with regard to our leadership—traumatic in that there have been changes of emphasis, changes of style. I very much regret to tell him that I am unable to enlarge at all on the letter to which he refers. As regards ships and docks, I shall certainly undertake to convey to my right honourable friend the request that the noble Lord makes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that interesting insight into personal relationships within the Government, may I presume to probe a little closer into the exact status of this Statement and the letter to the Chief Executive of British Rail? Am I right in thinking that this is a Statement which is headed "Letter to British Rail",
52
but that reference to the Serpell Report comes in the first sentence of the Statement? Am I not also right in thinking that the Statement and the letter cover some, but by no means all, the recommendations in the Serpell Report, some of them in detail?
If that is the case, may we take it that this Statement and letter are now the definitive Government response on the Serpell Report and that we can expect to hear no more of the Serpell Report from Government in directions to British Rail? We should be grateful to have the Minister's confirmation of that simple point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the Serpell Report has always been considered by the Government to be a discussion document; it set out to examine various factors. There is nothing underlying the letter that my right honourable friend has sent to the chairman of British Rail enclosing the rather formal statement of objectives which should give rise to the thought that appears to be in the mind of the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, that anything Serpell may have said in that report has been singled out in terms of recommendations. After all, we do not see Serpell as listing a number of recommendations; it discussed a number of options.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble Lord elaborate a little on what may be the political consequences of the traumatic changes in emphasis and style which apparently the Government have been suffering recently? It is a most intriguing oberservation and we should like a little more light to be thrown upon it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord will recall that I said, "We in the department".
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with great respect I do not think that the noble Lord has answered my question. I understand that these are guidelines from the Government to the British Rail Board. I have not had the advantage of reading the letter. I asked him specifically whether it is the Government's policy to regard rural rail networks as a social service or as simply a commercial enterprise. The noble Lord has not answered that question and I certainly was not confining my attention to the South-East. There are many rural areas outside the South-East that require a railway service a great deal more than the commuters of the South-Eastern area.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood me, and of course I accept that it is probably my fault in not having explained the matter adequately. The rural services are necessary, but not necessarily in the same form in which we currently see them. I say "not necessarily"; it is for the board to decide. Certainly I said that of some £819 million PSO grant this year, the bulk will go to the provincial services which take care of rural services. I should have thought that if the bulk of £819 million of grant goes in that direction, it would be seen that the Government regard the services as being necessary and not as just a commercial

53
enterprise—otherwise they would not grant-support them to that kind of level.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sure that the House does not want to prolong this discussion but the noble Lord kindly answered my question by saying yes, a Statement had been made in another place that the PSO grant for the ensuing year was reduced to £819 million. Will the noble Lord confirm the actual reduction, whether that has been discussed with the board, and what will he the effect on next year's working?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I did not say that there had been a reduction; I said that my right honourable friend had announced a PSO grant of£819 million plus adjustments, and that announcement was made in another place a short while ago. I regret that, due to the pressure of business in your Lordships' House, I have been here most of the afternoon awaiting the opportunity to make this Statement and cannot comment further on what my right honourable friend has said in another place within the past one or two hours.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
5.45 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Insert the following new Clause:
Codes of Practice for Data Users.

(".—(1) The Registrar may make and publish advisory Codes of Practice for use by data users in order to give effect to the data protection principles.

(2) Any person or body may make representations to the Registrar that a Code of Practice should be made.

(3) Before any such Code of Practice is made the Registrar shall:—

(i) consult with any person or bodies which appear to him to be affected and thereafter make a draft Code of Practice,

(ii) give public notice of any such draft Code of Practice by inviting objections and representations,

(iii) give consideration to any such objections and representations received by him.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, by arrangement with my noble and learned friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Digby, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, Lord Avebury, and my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. I do not want to harp on words that were used in the last intervention. It almost seems as though, in dealing with an amendment on codes of practice, we ought to have a look at some of our own codes of practice. However, I merely hope that what apparently is a very new mood of emphasis and attitude has, in the wind of change, blown from the Department of Transport also to the Home Office when it comes to the question of consideration of codes of practice.
We have been through what I believe my noble and learned friend said in an earlier amendment was an evolution in regard to the specific amendment he was moving, and we have certainly had an evolution in the amendments moved in regard to recommending to the House that there should be codes of practice. This was
54
of course a suggestion that was also made by the Lindop Committee, and I trust that yet again we shall not be throwing out a recommendation of the Lindop Committee. Where we appear to the Minister to have gone wrong in the past—and certainly to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who intervened so helpfully at the Committee stage; indeed, I might almost quote his speech as being my speech on this occasion, and it might be more effective if I did—in regard to codes of practice was that in our amendments we were giving them legalistic clothing which the Minister felt was wrong. If we gave them no legalistic clothing at all, in his view that would also be wrong because according to the wording of our amendment, it either could or could not be used as evidence when matters came before a tribunal.
We have sufficiently heeded the advice given by the noble Lord the Minister to come forward with an amendment which does not talk about any certificates, which does not talk about its being capable of being used as evidence before a tribunal. It merely seeks to help the industry and the nation when (if I may repeat a phrase I used before when addressing your Lordships on this particularly difficult technological area) it is difficult to see the future from your Lordships' Benches. This amendment merely seeks to make it permissive—not mandatory—for the registrar to make and publish advisory codes of practice. It also deals with the consultations that the registrar should have, and the publication that he ought to make, before these codes of practice are in fact introduced. They are to have no binding legal effect at all.
The Minister may answer this amendment by saying: "Of course the registrar could, if he wanted, introduce codes of practice, or encourage them. He does not have to have statutory backing for that. Of course people could make representations that there should be codes of practice. You do not have to have that incorporated in the statute". But those of us who support this amendment say that there ought to be codes of practice.Various industries need codes of practice for guidance, especially where you have a desire by industry, and a genuine desire, to see that what is meant in this Bill, and the principles set out in the schedule to it, arc in fact guided and advised on by the means of codes. You encourage that sort of thing by saying in an Act of Parliament that these matters are looked upon with favour. They are not made mandatory, but it is hoped that if this procedure is gone through codes of practice will see the light of day.
I end my submission on this amendment by saying that this is a completely non-political amendment which I hope all your Lordships will deal with on a completely non-political basis. The need in regard to this Bill is that we do the best job we can, and do not just adhere to a political mandate when we vote.
Lastly, may I say that during the Committee stage on 19th July the Minister himself, at column 1130 of the Official Report for that date, said this:
"There is nothing wrong with voluntary codes of practice. There is nothing wrong with the data protection register"—
the word is "register" in the Official Report, but it should obviously be "registrar"—
"assisting or advising in them. What I sought to point out was that this amendment"—

55
and that, I say in parenthesis, is the amendment we were then dealing with—
"gave the imprimatur of the data protection registrar which might lead to a tribunal's being asked to consider it as an indication that probably no infringement of a principle had taken place".
In my respectful submission that criticism does not apply to this amendment. I ask that the House support what Lindop recommended, and an amendment which now deals with all the objections which the Home Office has so far brought forward to the House in order to resist the statutory incorporation of a provision for codes of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Digby: My Lords, here again we have general agreement that there will be codes of practice. The issue is who will formulate them, and what will their status be in law. I had all sides of the Chamber against me—although I am not sure that Lindop was—when at Committee stage I suggested that the codes should supersede their principles. I entirely accept this, and this amendment makes the codes advisory.
Subsection (1) gives the registrar the right, not the duty, to publish these advisory codes, and makes it clear that the codes give effect to the protection principles and do not supersede them. Lindop said:
"The flexibility which we consider essential should be achieved by codes of practice."
They also said:
"We believe the best way, perhaps the only way, to achieve flexibility would be by codes of practice."
I cannot understand why the registrar cannot be given this power by statute. We are all agreed that these codes are going to be needed. Although codes of practice will provide extra work for the registrar at first, they will quite certainly save the registrar and data users much worry and work later.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with regard to codes of practice I hope that in reply to this amendment the noble Lord the Minister will not do what he did last time, and that is to ask a series of questions which he knew could not be answered because of the rules of Report stage. It was inconvenient to have the noble Lord fire off a barrage of interrogatives, as he did, knowing that none of us who had already spoken was going to have the opportunity of replying, although there was a perfectly good answer, which was that the case that the Minister was constructing was one against the advisory committees as a whole. I hope that he will not construct a case against codes of practice as a whole by asking a similar series of questions on this amendment, because in other fields codes of practice have been extremely useful. I mention as one example the Health and Safety at Work Act, with which the noble Lord is no doubt familiar.
There is not any dispute between us that codes of practice are desirable. On the face of the White Paper we find at paragraph 8:
"The Government sees some value in codes of practice in this field and expects that some professional bodies, trade associations, and other organisations may wish to prepare such codes as a guide to their members."
What happens when a trade association prepares such a code of practice? Is it simply to be left to the members to decide whether it helps them to comply
56
with the data protection principles, or is there going to be any independent evaluation of those codes of practice such as would be bound to occur if the registrar took them on board himself under this amendment?
I suggest that if you are going to have codes of practice at all—and the Minister obviously thinks that there should be some—then it is not enough to let the professional organisations and the trade bodies decide on what these codes of practice should be of their own volition. They should submit them to the experience of the registrar, who, after all, knows more than anybody else (or he will do by the time he has finished) about the way that the data protection principles apply.
The objection has been mentioned—it was raised by the Minister on a previous occasion—that when it came to a case a data user would be able to establish that he had complied with such a code of practice and therefore that he was not in violation of any of the data protection principles. I suggest that the Minister was putting it too strongly. Of course such a code of practice would be adduced as evidence in such a case. There is no doubt of that at all. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would agree that the data user would be bound to say that he had complied with the code of practice. But it certainly would not be the kind of conclusive evidence that the Minister was attempting to suggest on the previous occasion.
If the code of practice was found to be wrong, then of course the registrar would have to amend it as a result of that case. That is precisely what would happen. I suppose it happens from time to time in the case of the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the noble Lord will no doubt be able to inform us of the experience—
Lord Mishcon: And with the Inland Revenue.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is saying that it does in fact happen. I think the codes of practice would not be irrevocable; they could be changed as a result of experience and as a result of cases that were brought before the courts. But they would certainly be of enormous assistance to data users in enabling them to comply in detail with the data protection principles. If that is what the Government think, then let us give the status they would have by putting into the Bill that the registrar shall be responsible as set out here for making and publishing those advisory codes of practice, instead of leaving it as it would be if the White Paper were followed to the letter, that the trade associations, professional bodies and so on produced codes of practice in vacuo.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if I might briefly comment before my noble friend answers, I think we have now come, as the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, was saying, very much closer together. The previous Amendment, No. 14, in Committee stage referred to the committee which we have just voted down for the second time. We now refer to the "registrar". I am intervening because if one looks at Clause 34 one finds in subsections (1) and (2) that we are nearly there. Subsection (1) says:
"It shall be the duty of the Registrar so to perform his functions …. as to promote the observance of the data protection principles"

57
and subsection (2), among others, says—to paraphrase—that he may give advice to any person as to any of the matters within the scope of his functions under the Bill. That is very nearly there. The only things that are not mentioned is the phrase "codes of practice" and the part about consultation in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause.
Knowing that my noble friend the Minister fully accepts that there is a place for voluntary codes of practice, and that he has given authority to the registrar to give advice to anybody on any matter which relates to him. I should have thought, without necessarily accepting this amendment, that it does not take much to narrow the gap down to his being able to give advice on voluntary codes of practice produced by individual bodies; whether they be companies or trade associations, I would not make that point. What we really want to encourage is major data users having codes of practice that they evolve for themselves, on which they seek advice from the registrar on whether the codes are appropriate and comply fully with the data protection principles. That is as far as we need to go. I do not think that this amendment is in part necessary because Clause 34 covers much of what it tries to say. Perhaps at a later stage or in another place we might go the whole way on the substance of what most of us in this House are agreed upon.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that what one wants to see is various branches of the industry getting together, drawing up a code, going to the registrar and asking whether such a code would do. The registrar would then vet it. Everyone has been in favour of that from the word go, and it is clearly the most flexible way of handling anything as complicated and as constantly changing and developing as this industry.
We are asking that approval of this should be put into the Bill. If the noble Lord tells us that that power exists already, we all know that; that will tell us nothing new. We want it in the Bill so that people will realise that it is something of which the Government approve—the Government have said so; so I hope that the amendment in its present rather anodyne form will be approved.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, may I start by apologising if I caused offence or confusion by uttering rhetorical questions during the process of discussing the last amendment. They were indeed rhetorical. I thought I had answered them, but possibly not to the satisfaction of noble Lords opposite, though at least they had an answer. I shall try to avoid doing that further. We all know that we are on familiar ground here again. Indeed, my noble friend moved an amendment in Committee on this subject, as did noble Lords opposite. I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the great care taken by the movers of the amendment to take note of the objections that I voiced on that occasion.
By now the Government's position is fairly well known. Nevertheless, let me repeat that we are in favour of codes of practice, so let me explain in detail how we see them working in a useful, sensible and flexible way. We foresee users who have interests,
58
requirements and operating procedures broadly in common with one another coming together perhaps under the auspices of a professional society, representative body or trade association, as my noble friend has suggested to produce a code of practice applying to them, as my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Swinfen both said at an earlier stage. If codes are to fit the requirements of users they must he initiated by those users. So codes will be drawn up indicating how users might best be advised to go about their use of data in such a way as to avoid breaching the data protection principles. Codes cannot guarantee against breaches but they can obviously help to avoid them. That is welcome and will reduce the eventual workload on the registrar, as my noble friend Lord Digby said.
Once the codes are drawn up the users might simply promulgate them and indicate what domestic arrangements are to be made to promote compliance with them. Alternatively, some users may wish to get a view on their codes from the registrar. They may ask him his view on whether the code adequately and reasonably covers the ground or should be improved in any way. The data protection registrar could give such advice without prejudice to any future action he might wish to take in respect of a contravention of the principles. The users would then issue their code and if it is a good code it will reduce the occasions when the principles are breached. The users themselves will encourage compliance and may even agree on internal disciplinary measures in the event of contravention. The registrar will continue to supervise observance of the principles. They are the criteria he will use regardless of the details of any code which will be a matter for users in their own internal actions to promote good data protection practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, correctly anticipated our reaction to all this, and it is something that Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge already knows about because he has said so. I have to observe that all of this can happen under the Bill as it now exists. It does not call for any additional statutory expression. Users can produce codes already. Some already have codes in existence. If they so wish they will be at perfect liberty to seek the registrar's views on them.
Noble Lords will remember that the registrar has a duty under Clause 34, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone reminded us, to promote observance of the principles and to disseminate information. He also has a power there, futhermore, to give advice. The registrar is, therefore, specifically equipped to respond positively wherever he can. In other words, the Bill already allows users to draw up sectoral codes of practice, but it does not equate observance of such codes with the observance of the principles that the registrar must supervise.
That, then, is what we want to see; but what would be the position under the Bill as amended by the noble Lords opposite and by my noble friend? Their amendment is clearly designed to meet a number of objections that I have raised in the past, but, as a result, it appears to impose certain restrictions on the registrar without adding usefully to the powers he already has. I criticised my noble friend's earlier proposals in this area because they had the effect of elevating codes of practice above the principles. Noble

59
Lords will recall that the crucial test was to have been not whether a user had complied with the principles, but whether he had complied with the code.
This new amendment cannot be criticised on those grounds. My noble friend and noble Lords opposite propose now that the codes should be merely advisory and should have no legal force whatsoever. That certainly meets my previous objection, but it seens also to bear out my view that there is no need for an amendment to the Bill to achieve this result. If codes of practice are to have legal status, provision needs to be made in the Bill. If they are not, then it does not.
It might be argued that if this is the case, the amendment does no harm. It could be added that stating the obvious does is no bad thing if it encourages the production of the codes of practice which all or us want to see. But I think the amendment may be harmful because it creates expectations which the registrar may be hard put to or, indeed, unable to live up to. In particular, it seems to vest in him either the initiative or a leading indispensable role for getting codes of practice under way and then seeks to place additional restrictions upon him regarding the discharge of that initiative. My noble friend Lord Digby referred to the extra work which would be involved in setting this up.
I should like your Lordships to be mindful of the enormous and rapidly growing number of computers and data users in this country already. The number of groupings that might wish, appropriately, for codes of practice cannot be clearly foreseen now but one thing is certain. It is likely to be extremely large. Another thing is certain. The process of devising a code of practice is going to be long and is going to be complex; and I am not at all sure that placing an arbitrary bottleneck of the process by suggesting in statute that the whole thing ought to be taken on board even without being forced to do it by the registrar, will not have exactly the opposite effect to that which the supporters of this amendment (and the very important and influential bodies which advise them) are seeking.
The day when workable codes of conduct are in effective use could, I fear, be considerably delayed by the process. The amendment is careful to say only that the registrar "may" make codes of practice and not "shall". It can be argued therefore that if the registrar finds that his resources are overstretched at any time and may be better used in other ways, he is under no obligation to spend time drawing up codes of practice. But by specifically drawing attention to codes of practice in the Bill we would be creating expectations and I think, as I said earlier, a bottleneck. By producing the expectation that it is the registrar who is to set about getting groups of users together and initiating the drawing up of codes of practice requiring a certain procedure to be followed, the amendment would discourage from doing so some users who wanted to take a different approach to drawing up codes of practice.
I have little more to say, but, from what I have said already, it will be clear that, while we are in favour of codes of practice, we remain of the view that they are best left outside the Bill. We do not doubt that some
60
users will wish to consult the registrar about advisory codes of practice, and I hope that many of them will. This they can already do under the Bill and the registrar has an actual duty and power in Clause 34 to meet that. May I suggest therefore that to give statutory expression to the role of codes of practice and to how the registrar shall respond to them may work against the best interests of all those concerned? The more we seek in the Bill to dictate particular procedures for codes, the more we risk unnecessarily fettering registrar and data users alike.
We are, of course, aware—and here I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—of codes of practice that are given legal status under other legislation. There is the Highway Code, for instance. There is the provision for codes under the Health and Safety at Work Act, to which he referred. There are codes allowed for under the Race Relations Act. But none of these offers a direct and satisfactory parallel. None of them envisages separate codes for a great mass of different persons, as would be the case in data protection. The Highway Code applies to all drivers, the code on racial discrimination in employment applies to all employers.
Then, these other codes address rather different and generally more specific issues. It is one thing to draw up a code on the safety standards for equipment or clothing or good practice in advertising job vacancies, but quite another to devise something meaningful to ensure that, in all the myriad circumstances that will occur, data are collected fairly. As we found elsewhere, what may be sensible and reasonable in one place cannot necessarily be transplanted satisfactorily to the field of data protection, which is a very large and very complex one.
In the process of the Report stage of this Bill. I hope to continue revealing a conciliatory and attentive approach to what is said by people on the other side of the House. I am sorry that where, as on this occasion, they are joined by my noble friend on this side of the House, I am unable to be more conciliatory and friendly than I have been.I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister will not be surprised to learn how much I disagree with what he has just said. But I do not intend to rehearse it. There was one thing,however, which really surprised me. It was when he said that there was a large and rapidly increasing number of computers and data banks. That is undoubtedly true but the question I have to ask is this. Can it be true that the number of codes of practice can exceed the number of computers and data banks? The whole purpose of codes of practice is to reduce the burden upon the registrar of individual computers and data banks having to be reported separately.
I should have thought that this was something which was very akin to Conservative philosophy. I should have thought that the Government would actually wish the various parts of the business community to do this work themselves in advance of full registration and make the life of Government agencies simpler and, therefore, reduce Government bureaucracy and demands on public expenditure. It is that business

61
aspect of codes of practice to which the noble Lord the Minister has not referred and it weakens his argument, I think.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the amount of work that would be required if the registrar was to make the codes of practice would be prohibitive. Would he, however, consider allowing codes of practice produced by data users (who, after all, know where they can be misused) to be authorised or approved in some way by the registrar so that the onus is on the data users to produce codes of practice that then have to be approved by the registrar as fitting in with the data protection principles?
Lord Elton: My Lords, by leave of your Lordships and contrary to normal convention here, because this is Report stage, may I respond to those two points? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I would say that certainly we do not expect one code per machine. That would be nave. We expect as many users of machines as possible to come together to create the minimum number of viable codes. That, I hope, will be the result. But the number of genuses of user is enormous because there is almost no public or private function which is not in the future going to be aided by machines capable of using personal data. Therefore, there are going to be very many codes of practice; that was all I wished to say.
We are entirely in favour of business getting on and organising its own code of practice. That is what I spent, I fear, perhaps seven to 12 minutes trying to say to your Lordships a moment ago. What we do not want to do is to put it into statute, for reasons which I will not repeat.
To my noble friend Lord Swinfen, may I say that I welcome his support but I would remind him that the onus is already on the users under the Bill to come forward with codes if they wish to do so. But what we cannot place upon the unfortunate data protection registrar is the duty to place an imprimatur on any code of conduct and then say that whatever goes amiss, whatever damage is suffered by private individuals as a result of some loophole in this code which he did not foresee until, regrettably, that damage was done and could not be repaired or compensated, will not be without the law and, therefore, will not be compensatable. That is not in the amendment but it was in what my noble friend asked me. I should not have spoken twice. I apologise.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not think that a further lengthy speech is called for; nor would it be welcome. I want to make only one or two very brief observations. For the first one, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who handed me (since he himself has to be silent having spoken once) a copy of the Government's White Paper. The relevant paragraph when one deals with the question of the number of codes of practice that might be involved is Paragraph 8. I quote:
"The Lindop Committee recommended that the data protection authority should produce codes of practice which would be laid before Parliament and have the force of law. Some 50 or more codes would apply the general principles to the wide variety of situations in which personal data are processed automatically".
62
I end the quotation there, the quotation being relevant only from the point of view of the numbers that we are dealing with—which is not in thousands or in millions but, on this estimate, about 50 or more.
Having said that, the argument is one that is very simple. We dealt with the codes of practice previously. The points are known to all your Lordships. The Government had an objection and it was, if I may say so, reasonably argued. The amendment, the Minister recognises, meets the main objection and now there are further objections which are limited purely and simply to the question: why have it in an Act of Parliament when it can be done anyway? The arguments for its being done anyway have been advanced and I hope that your Lordships, in this completely non-political matter, will see fit to support the amendment.
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 97.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Avebury, L.

Jacques, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bernstein, L.

John-Mackie, L. [Teller.]

Bishopston, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Byers, L.

Longford, E.

Chitnis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Collison, L.

Mishcon, L.

Craigavon. V.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Diamond, L.

Oram, L.

Digby, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

[Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rhodes, L.

Flowers, L.

Seear, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Shannon, E.

Gallacher, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gregson, L.

Stone, L.

Hale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V,

Tordoff, L.

Harrris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hooson, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Carrington, L.

Alport, L.

Cockfield, L.

Avon, E.

Coleraine, L.

Bath, M.

Colwyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Belstead, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Boardman, L.

Croft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Daventry, V.

Caccia, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

63

Elton, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Mancroft, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mansfield, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Marley, L.

Gainford, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Gisborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Mersey, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Morris, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mottistone, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Orkney, E.

Marylebone, L.

Portland, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hayter, L.

Reigate, L.

Headfort, M.

Romney, E.

Henley, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Holderness, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Seebohm, L.

Ingrow, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kemsley, V.

Spens, L.

Killeam. L.

Stamp, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Strathspey, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Teviot, L.

Lawrence, L.

Teynham, L.

Lindsev and Abingdon, E.

Tranmire, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Lonsdale, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vickers, B.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Westbury, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Whitelaw, V.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 4 [Registration of data users and computer bureaux]:
6.28 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 14, leave out from first ("user") to ("shall") in line 15.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the series of amendments to Clause 4, of which No. 7 is one, is designed to clear up any misunderstanding which may have existed about the registration requirements for data users who also carry on computer bureaux. It has been put to us in the past that the effect of Clause 4 (3), as presently drafted, is to require any user who also operates a computer bureau to register not only the details of the data he holds as a data user but also the details of any data which he processes as a bureau on behalf of others. Indeed, we debated this very point in Committee stage when my noble friend LordMottistone tabled a number of amendments aimed at clarifying the situation. My noble friend Lord Elton explained then that the clause imposed no such requirement, and indeed it would be a nonsense to require people who operate computer bureaux to predict what data their customers are likely to want processed.
Nevertheless, in view of the confusion which clearly existed, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, promised to consider with great care what the noble Lord had said. I am bound to say that even after careful reexamination of this issue, we have still arrived at the conclusion that an amendment was not strictly necessary and that the clause as drafted achieved the right result.
Nevertheless, my noble friend succeeded in demonstrating that it was possible to be misled by the clause, and in all the circumstances we believe it would be churlish to refuse to clarify the situation. I hope therefore that these amendments which follow will put the matter beyond doubt and make it clear that, while a data user is required to provide all the information referred to in Clause 4 (3), the only information which is required in relation to bureau operations is the name and address of the person who carries on the bureau. I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like very much to thank my noble friend Lady Trumpington, and of course my noble friend Lord Elton, for having taken on board what I proposed at Committee stage, and indeed for improving on the third of my amendments and repeating my first two. I am sure that they are right about the interpretation of the English over which we argued earlier. But I think it is most civil of them to agree that there might be room for error and for having therefore adopted what I proposed at an earlier stage. I am sure that the British Bankers' Association, who advised me on this point, will be equally delighted. I thank my noble friends very much.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it is hard to resist the temptation—therefore, I shall not resist it—to note the greater readiness to meet suggestions of the noble Lord. Lord Mottistone, than to meet equally valid and valuable suggestions from this side of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 en bloc:
Page 4, line 32, leave out from ("bureau") to ("shall") in line 33.line 34, at end insert—
("(4A) Subject to the provisions of this section, an entry in respect of a data user who also carries on a computer bureau shall consist of his name and address and, as respects the personal data to be held by him, the particulars specified in subsection (3)(b) to (f) above.")
line 36, leave out ("and 4") and insert (", (4) and (4A)")
line 41, leave out ("and (4)") and insert (, (4) and (4A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6 [Applications for registration and for amendment of registered particulars]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 16, leave out from ("registration") to end of line 18 and insert ("shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and every application for the alteration of registered particulars shall be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this is what we might safely call a minor amendment which need not detain us unduly. In its present form, Clause 6(7) has the effect that both applications for registration and applications for the alteration of registered particulars must be accompanied by a fee. That rules out the possibility, which we might wish to consider, of charging no fee where alterations to registered particulars are concerned. The purpose of this amendment is to preserve that option. The existence of an alteration fee might make some users just a little reluctant to notify any changes, or to save them up until they considered it was worth their while to seek an amendment to their registered particulars. That is clearly understandable since the register should be as accurate a reflection, and as up-to-date a

65
reflection, of users' activities as possible. Further,it is possible that the level of the alteration fee might be so low as to make it uneconomic to collect and we would not wish to require the registrar to indulge in uneconomic practices. We therefore think it wise at least to allow for the possibility of waiving fees for alterations of particulars. That is the purpose of the amendment which I commend to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Enforcement notices]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 13:
[Printed earlier].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Disclosure of information]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 15, line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(3) The said section 2 shall not be construed as precluding the disclosure of information by any person mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) above or by any officer or servant of the Tribunal where the disclosure is made for the purpose of discharging his duties under this Act or for the purpose of proceedings under or arising out of this Act, including proceedings before the Tribunal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stems—and I asked him to wait for it—from a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in Committee. He was concerned that application of the Official Secrets Act to the registrar might prejudice his independence. In particular, he feared that it would, at least in theory, be possible for a Minister to prohibit the registrar from disclosing, as part of his duties, certain information he had obtained, thus preventing him from taking effective action against Government departments. I sought, unsuccessfully I fear, to allay his fears and undertook to consider the point further. And I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point, because in discharging that undertaking we have come to realise that Clause 17 could be better cast than it is.
It clearly is important to ensure that information obtained by the registrar is properly protected; otherwise data users would be 'reluctant to give him information for fear that it might be passed on to others with no right to see it. But our desire to meet this point led us, we now acknowledge, to duplicate the effect of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 by creating a new offence in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 17 which covered the same ground. Subsections (3) and (4) are designed to protect information obtained by the registrar from private, as opposed to Government, sources: but Section 2 already does this because it applies to all information obtained in the course of official duty, regardless of its source.
This amendment therefore deletes the separate offence in subsections (3) and (4) which we now see to be unnecessary. At the same time, however, it seeks to clarify the position of the registrar under the Official
66
Secrets Act—in a way that I hope will meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It provides that application of that Act shall not preclude the registrar from disclosing information, if it is necessary for him to do so for the purpose of discharging his duties under the Bill or for the purpose of proceedings arising out of the Bill. This brings us back to the point originally raised by the noble Lord, since the effect of this provision is to rule out any possibility, however remote it might have been, of interference by Ministers wishing to prevent the registrar from using information obtained by him from their departments to take action against them. As the amendment achieves the result desired by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and indeed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I hope that they will be glad to see it. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the gracious words he used in accepting this amendment and concession.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords. I am delighted to see that an amendment from the noble Lords opposite has also been accepted by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Right of access to personal data]:
6.40 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 17, line 8, leave out ("in writing")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as it appears on the Marshalled List this amendment may give a slightly misleading impression. It may suggest that no longer do we see any need for subjects to have a written copy of their data when given subject access and that we are therefore reducing subjects' access rights. That is not the case. The effect of the amendment in fact is to extend those rights. Let me explain how.
Clause 21(1)(b) at present provides the data subject with the right to be supplied by the data user with a copy in writing of any information held about him on computer. The reference to a copy "in writing" was designed in the Bill as originally drafted as a safeguard for the data subject to ensure that the data user could not discharge his duty to give subject access by simply handing over a copy of an unintelligible computer tape. In the original Bill, therefore, these two words served an important purpose. However, thanks to an amendment made last Session to Clause 21(1), following representations made, as I recall, by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the Bill now takes care of this point by another means. Thanks to their intervention Clause 21(1)(b) provides that where the information is expressed in terms which are not intelligible without an explanation, it must he accompanied by an explanation, thus ensuring that the impulses on a magnetic tape must be rendered into meaningful form.
The words "in writing" have therefore become strictly unnecessary. But what is more, it has now been

67
brought home to us that they are in fact too restrictive. Computers may be used to hold information not presently in written form at all—copies of fingerprints, for instance, or pictures. A set of fingerprints, or a picture of an individual, could undoubtedly constitute personal data of a kind to which the subject should have a right of access and a copy of which he should be entitled to receive. He may wish to check that it is indeed his picture that is held and not a case of mistaken identity. But Clause 21(1)(b) as presently cast fails to deal with this situation since neither the picture nor the fingerprints can be reduced, despite what art critics may say, to writing.
The simple deletion of the words "in writing"should however be sufficient to ensure a subject's right to receive a copy of his fingerprints or picture if they are held on computer. And the rest of the Bill works satisfactorily without amendment in its application to this particular type of information. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the very clear explanation he has given to the House of the reason for this amendment, which is obviously desirable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 17, line 29, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)(b) of this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a point which has not been raised before. It seems to me to be rather an important one and I am quite prepared to be told that I misunderstood it. Here, with the leave of the House, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 36 to Clause 29:
Amendment No. 36: Clause 29, page 22, line 11, leave out from ("from") to ("or") in line 12 and insert ("only that part of the subject access provisions described in subsection (1)(b) of section 21 above")
As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State's powers in Clause 29 to grant exemption to the subject access provisions include exemption from the seventh data protection principle, and I do not think that they should—that is, the principle of disclosure. If they did indeed, would they not be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention? Surely the point of Clause 29 is to exempt the data user from the obligation of disclosure of matter held as personal data but not from the obligation under the seventh principle to disclose that personal data are in fact held without disclosing what they are. It is rather a complicated sentence but I hope it is clear. It is therefore necessary to exclude the individual's right to be told that personal data are in fact held about him from the Secretary of State's powers of exemption in Clause 29. If anybody is unclear exactly what this means, I shall try to expand, but what I have said is in fact exactly the point. I shall be interested in what the noble Lord has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16 and 36 are, I think, alternative means of achieving the
68
same end—that is, to ensure that where social work records are concerned individuals are always told whether data are held about them, even though there may be an exemption from the requirement to give access to the actual data. I had no difficulty in understanding that: but perhaps I ought courteously to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for a rough idea of his approach to this problem which may have helped me in my interpretation.
The amendment to Clause 21 would be appropriate only if the noble Lord's major amendments, removing the social work exemption from Clause 29 to Clause 21, which we shall come to in a moment, are accepted. The amendment to Clause 29, on the other hand, would be appropriate—indeed, can only be made—if those other amendments do not apply. The principle behind the amendments is simple. The intention is, as I have said, that where social work records are exempted from subject access, the subject should still be told that the data exist.
The noble Lord has suggested that there is a distinction to be drawn here between Clause 21 and the seventh principle. In fact, this is not so, because both contain the entitlement to be told whether data are held and the right to be given a copy of any data which are held. Any exemptions must therefore relate to both Clause 21 and the seventh principle, as they parallel one another. Inasmuch as the amendments make no reference to the seventh principle they are flawed, but I make nothing of that because the noble Lord is in search of information.
It is the overall concept behind the amendments to which I want to address myself, and on that I have to ask whether it is really wise to take decisions of this kind at this stage—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will forgive another rhetorical question because I am asking it of myself— rather than act in the full light of the consultation that is now going on with those involved in all aspects of social work. I shall have more to say about those consultations when we come to the next series of amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lords opposite. Suffice it to say for the moment that the Department of Health and Social Security is consulting fully with the interested parties as to the form and extent of any subject access exemptions for social work data to be made under a Clause 29(2) order.
At this stage I suggest it would be rash to assume that we know what they will reveal, because not all the opinions are in. Although the deadline is passed, about a third of them are to come, some of them from influential bodies. In particular, I do not think it is at all safe to assume that we shall emerge from the consultations convinced that we need never provide for circumstances in which for his own good the data subject ought not to be told that data exist but are being withheld. There may quite likely be circumstances in which if data are being withheld from the subject because access would be harmful to him, it could be equally harmful to tell him that such data were being withheld for that reason. Certainly we should think very hard before amending the Bill itself now to provide that even where exemption from actual access applies the user still has to say, "We do hold personal data about you but we are not going to

69
tell you what it is". That could in itself have serious and regrettable consequences, so we should maintain the maximum flexibility in the order-making power under Clause 29(2) at least until we have the results of the consultation.
But I do not suggest that your Lordships should abandon your interest in this matter. Your Lordships will remember that the power is itself subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am not suggesting therefore that your Lordships should let the issue out of your sight entirely. I am saying that neither your Lordships nor the Government have yet sufficient knowledge to make that decision with confidence. It ought to be made in due time with the full benefit of consultation, and that means making it using the order-making power as drafted in the Bill. Those considerations apply equally to both amendments.
In conclusion therefore I suggest that it is too early for us to reach final decisions on the nature of the exemptions for social work or to tie the Secretary of State's hands in the way proposed by the noble Lord. I hope I have made it clear why that is.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I do not propose to divide the House at this stage because it is a difficult point. However, it seems to me that a data subject who will be being advised, by definition, more or less, by professionals will from time to time want to know whether there is anything held about him. I think it would upset him very much indeed not to be answered. To say that there is a file on him but that he is not going to be told why, for the reasons dealt with in the next amendment, seems to me to he an impossible position, hut that is the position in which we are left at the moment.
The next question I want to ask the noble Lord is this. He says this can be dealt with later. How, when and where? Does he mean in another place, when the Bill goes there? How is it going to be dealt with? It seems to me there is something wrong here, and I want to know how it is going to be dealt with later. I am sure the noble Lord may answer with the leave of the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, the noble Lord has asked me two questions. First, he asked for an illustration of a case where it might be beneficial to hold back such information. I do not speak from a brief, but the case that occurs to me immediately is this. Suppose there is a computerised national list of people suffering from a dangerous, noninfectious but incurable disease. Is it right that such a person should be told that his name is on the list but no more is to be revealed? Is it not better in some circumstances, with the advice of the medical practitioner in charge, to withhold the information that that person is on the list at all? It may be a bad example, but there are others, which need not be medical, where one can see the difficulty. We recently had a debate about adoption and establishing parenthood, in which we decided in the opposite sense. I do think there might be occasions when there would be advantage in preserving this power.
70
The extent to which I am right in saying that we should pay tribute to it by our legislative arrangements is something which will be easier to ascertain when we have received all the consultation papers and have digested them. It was apparent when the Bill was drafted that there would be this difficulty of timing. It seemed wrong to hold up the Bill in order to get this one issue out of the way. That is why there is an order making power which will enable the Secretary of State to make an order setting up the exemption as appropriate in the light of the advice when it is received.
The noble Lord is, I think, tempting me to say that the advice will be received and considered before this Bill has got beyond the premises next door, as it were. I really do not know the answer to that, but I am certain that the noble Lord's friends in another place will be quite competent to take up the issue if the information is available in time for them to do so with profit in another place.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I only want to say this because I think my noble friend may not have an opportunity to cover all the ground. The adoption problem which the noble Lord mentioned is really not relevant to the amendment under consideration because that is covered, speaking from memory, by Clause 33(2)(a), where there is exemption for disclosure of information which is otherwise prohibited by statute. That is dealt with, I think I am right in saying, under the Adoption Act.
The example the noble Lord gave was one in the medical field. We are not discussing that; we are discussing social work records. All my noble friend is asking is whether the Minister does not feel that there will be serious problems if, when a person comes to the notice of a social work agency and deals with the professionals, he then wishes to inquire whether there is information on him held on the computer under the control of that social work agency. He inquires and he is told that he is not permitted to know whether or not they hold information. My noble friend was seeking to suggest to the Minister, I think quite rightly, that if that is the sort of answer the client is given it will open up all sorts of serious problems of relationships between the client and the social worker. It is one thing to say that disclosure is prohibited for certain reasons which can he explained to the client: it is quite another thing to tell him that he is not permitted to know whether or not information is there. I think we are storing up serious problems for ourselves and making unnecessary difficulties between client and social worker if we are not to give him the bare information that my noble friend has suggested.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my contribution will be a short one. I think it is extremely dangerous that we are dealing, not for the first time, with the question of social workers and the right of the data subject who is being assisted by social workers to information, first of all as to whether there are data and then what those data are. With great respect to the noble Lord the Minister, it is very difficult indeed to swallow the fact that at this stage, Report stage of the second time that the Bill has been before Parliament, the situation has not yet been reached on this vital matter where

71
evidence has been collated and the Minister has had a chance to consider it. It seems to me that this is one of the difficulties, both in the medical field and in the social work field, which became apparent the first time this Bill saw the light of day in the last Parliament.
For us to be told that we cannot make up our minds, and indeed that another place may not be able to make up their minds in time and that this will be left to an Order in Council—and we all know what happens to Orders in Council, with the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure—seems to me to be lamentable. Somebody is to blame, whether it is the Home Office or the Department of Social Security. There is not the slightest doubt that more information and evidence should have been available before we were asked at Report stage to deal with vital amendments of this kind moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would speak again only to say that in view of what has been said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, the next amendment on the Marshalled List is No. 17.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, this is a long and complicated amendment and I propose to make quite a long speech. Would it not be better to dine first?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I think that that probably would be the right answer, if that is for the convenience of the House. I do not quite know how long the dinner Business will take, but to be fair to the House sitting on the Report stage I think that perhaps we should agree that, even if the dinner Business does not last that long, we will not resume the Report stage before 8 o'clock. I beg to move that the Report stage be adjourned until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales
7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellviin): My Lords. I beg to move, That the Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
Section 14 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 requires the Audit Commission, after consultation with the local authority associations and the accountancy profession, to prepare a code of local government audit practice for England and Wales prescribing the way in which auditors employed or appointed by the commission should carry out their functions. The Act provides that the code shall not
72
come into force until approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. The code was first laid before Parliament on 11th July and was approved in another place on 28th July.
Before describing the contents of the code now before us I would like, if I may, to explain some of the background to its preparation. Prior to the 1982 Act the responsibility for overseeing audit and monitoring audit standards in local government lay with the audit inspectorate which answered directly to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In 1973, under these arrangements, a local government audit code of practice was issued in the form of an annex to a departmental circular. Although it was lodged before publication in the Library' of the House. this 1973 code was, however, not subject to parliamentary approval.
With the 1982 Act the responsibility for overseeing local government audit practice passed to an independent body—the Audit Commission. In the debates on the new audit arrangements both here and in another place great emphasis was placed on the new Commission's need for independence and, in order to reaffirm the commission's status, the Government readily agreed that the commission's code should be subject to parliamentary approval. I am therefore here today to honour that commitment to bring the code to your Lordships' House for consideration.
I must. however, stress that the code is the commission's own, prepared by its members representing many interests in both public and private sectors. As required by the 1982 Act, the commission has not only taken account of its own members' wide experience of financial management and audit practice, but has also consulted local authority interests and the accountancy profession in drawing up the code.
The result is, I believe, a thoroughly worthwhile document and one which will provide a sound framework for the work of auditors in local government. The code takes account of developments in audit practice since 1973 and of the new audit arrangements. It also deals with the additional duties placed on auditors by the 1982 Act including the important duty to consider value for money.
Although the code itself is, as I have said. the commission's own. I would like to outline its main features to your Lordships and also draw attention to the points to which the commission attaches particular importance. Some of these essential features are touched upon in the introduction to the code which also explains the commission's intentions in drawing up a suitably prescriptive document. The main provisions of the code then fall into two sections. Section 1 prescribes the general duties of an auditor and sets out the three factors which the commission believe should characterise his work. These are independence, due professional care and recognition of the public interest. This section also describes how the auditor should communicate his findings to those legitimately concerned. The remainder of the code prescribes how the audit should be conducted and identifies the points to which the auditor should pay particularly close attention in discharging his responsibilities, including that in respect of value for money.

73
Turning next to the text of the code, the commission's basic philosophy is contained in paragraph 6 which stresses the special considerations which apply to the audit of public funds financed by compulsory levy. The code makes clear that in addition to considering whether such funds have been legally spent and accounted for, the auditor must also address himself to whether money raised from tax and ratepayers has been spent in a way providing value for money. That is not to say that the commission sees a role for the auditor in questioning spending policies. Indeed, at paragraphs 26 and 43 the commission later explains that the role of the auditor is restricted to examining the effectiveness of the arrangements for carrying out such spending policies.
The commission also stresses in the last subsection of paragraph 6 that both the auditors and the commission itself have a duty to ensure not only that the approach to the audit process is consistent but also that information about efficient procedures is transferred from one authority to others. In this way auditors will be able to help the bodies they audit to improve their efficiency. The code also recognises the need for an auditor to co-operate with internal audit staff and seek to understand the aims of the body concerned and what it is trying to achieve. At the same time the commission equally emphasises that the auditor must always bear in mind his responsibilities to the public at large. The code clearly states that if necessary an auditor must not shrink from making any criticisms public.
The code's stance on other possible conflicts of interest is also unequivocal; the independence of the auditor will always be of paramount importance. Thus, paragraph 8 of the code rules that an auditor may not undertake any additional work for the authority he is to audit unless either the cost of this work is de minimis, or he and the authority concerned can satisfy the commission that the auditor's independence will not be impaired and that the additional costs of using another auditor would be excessive. This bar on additional work also extends to the auditor's firm or any organisation in which he has an interest and the commission will enforce this aspect of the code by insisting that every individual case is argued separately before it and that the contracts with firms appointed reinforce the auditor's independence.
In addition to this independence the code singles out in paragraph 9 the requirement for all auditors to exercise due professional care. Even where audit work is shared with others the code makes clear that the auditor retains a personal responsibility and gives examples of the action to be taken to fulfill this requirement.
The final characteristic described in this section of the code is the auditor's responsibility to safeguard the public interest. His duties both to the authority and to those to whom the authority is accountable are set out in paragraphs 10 and 30. The commission have made a clear distinction between routine matters which the auditor should try to resolve with officers during the course of or at the end of the audit and significant matters which are of sufficient importance for the auditor to bring to the attention of elected members. This involvement of elected members was not to he found in the 1973 code and the commission have
74
stressed the need for an auditor to prepare a management letter for such members and to seek a meeting with them to discuss and amplify the points made.
Other procedural matters spelled out in paragraphs 14 to 22 of the code are how the auditor should respond to questions from the public, how he should handle objections and how he should express an opinion on the accounts when the audit is completed. The procedure for dealing with matters justifying a report in the public interest is described in paragraphs 23 to 29. Paragraph 24 gives examples of the kind of matter which might call for a report including unnecessary expenditure, inefficient financial administration or poor value for money. In paragraph 26, however, the commission stresses that although an auditor should not be deterred from making a report because its subject matter is critical or unwelcome, it is not his function to question policy. The auditor is not there to question a council's policy objectives although he may seek to show how those objectives could be more sensibly achieved.
The remainder of the code—Section 2—deals with procedures to be observed by the auditor and draws heavily on work done by the accountancy bodies. In identifying the matters to which particularly close attention should be paid, the commission emphasises the particular responsibilities of the local authority auditor in relation to fraud and corruption.
Finally, I would like to touch upon the last part of the code which deals with the new value for money responsibility to which the Government attach great importance. This responsibility which was conferred on auditors by Section 15(1)(c) of the 1982 Act requires an auditor to satisfy himself:
"that the body whose accounts are being audited has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources".
Paragraph 40 of the Commission's code clearly defines the specific meaning to be given to these three terms and the Commission again emphasises in paragraph 43 that, although an auditor has a responsibility to look at the effects of policy and the arrangements by which policy decisions are reached, it is not,
"the auditor's function to question policy".
The Commission has thus made it clear that the role of auditor is quite distinct from that of policy maker and that the auditor cannot question any policy decision as long as that decision is made with the eyes open and in full possession of the facts. This, I am sure your Lordships will agree, is a significant and proper distinction made in a well considered and practical code. I should therefore like to commend this code to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Code of Practice laid before the House on 11 th July be approved.—(Lord Bellwin.)
7.11 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House or those of your Lordships who remain to survive the festivities in another place, will thank the noble Lord for having introduced the Motion. He is always most disarming in the way that he introduces Motions, or even Bills, in the House. He appears so reasonable, often with an air of injured innocence, that it seems

75
almost sinful to register a note of dissent. It is therefore with great regret that I have to register considerable dissent this evening.
This Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales is a prescriptive document. Section 14 of the 1982 Act gives to this quango the right to prescribe. It gives it the right to issue directions. This is rather an unusual function to attribute to a quango of this type. There is no option. The noble Lord's legal advisers have advised him that this becomes entirely prescriptive, unlike so many other codes of practice which are much favoured by his party which believes in voluntary compliance. There are City codes, codes, for example, for journalists and codes for all kinds of other things which act as a guide but which are never given a prescriptive right sanctified by a regulation. Therefore we have to examine this a little more carefully than is perhaps convenient to the noble Lord.
I refer in particular to the first part of the certificate to be completed by every auditor, whether of the old district audit service or a member of an outside firm of accountants. I must declare an interest in that my firm has made application to be considered for appointment under the provisions of the Act. That application may be a little academic in view of what I have to say. In the certificate, which as far as I can see is not optional, the unqualified audit opinion has to state that the audit has been,
"completed … in accordance with Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and the Code of Audit Practice.".
I ask my first question by reason of the very detail that is contained in the code. If it is impossible by reason of time and the sheer volume of work involved to cover every part of the code, is it open to the auditor to be able to qualify the certificate and in place of,
"in accordance with Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and the Code of Audit Practice",
insert the words. "with due regard to the Code of Audit Practice"? As I shall show, for a firm of outside practising accountants—and, I venture to think, a survivor of the district auditing service—to carry out all the requirements of the code would produce an almost intolerable situation. Something would have to give. The cost of the audit would have to go up very considerably or it would be virtually impossible for any auditor to cross his heart and say that every detail in the code of audit practice had been carried out. That is the first question that I have to ask. The noble Lord will find that the attachment to which I have referred does not have numbered pages owing to the efficiency of the Audit Commission, so I cannot give him the page, but he knows perfectly well which it is. It is the page that immediately follows the text.
The code of audit practice covers a very wide field. I am afraid that the ordinary practice of auditing in the United Kingdom is not something that excites much parliamentary debate. It certainly does not evoke much public interest. By and large auditing is a boring and technical subject and emotions are not easily aroused by discussion of its merits or demerits. For my purpose suffice it to say that the responsibilities of an auditor of an ordinary limited company, whether public or an ordinary private company, are themselves pretty formidable.
76
In accordance with the professional code. which members of professional bodies adopt voluntarily, even though the Companies Acts do not spell out in detail the duties of auditors, the professional bodies have evolved by their statements of practice a code to which most accountants have adhered in interpreting the various Companies Acts. Their task is quite formidable. It includes vouching all the primary documentation to make sure the books and records reflect accurately each particular transaction recorded. They too have to be on their guard against fraud and corruption. Their responsibility is to ensure that the financial statement presented to the shareholders—comprising normally a balance sheet and profit and loss account—presents a true and fair view of the state of the company's affairs. For further elucidation. these days most accounts are accompanied by copious notes which the auditor thinks will assist shareholders and the public to arrive at a fair and balanced appraisal of the company's affairs.
At no stage in the auditor's normal duty. as distinct from his separate function as a management consultant or whatever he may be, is he drawn into a position where he questions management decisions as such or the efficiency in arriving at them. Unless he is separately instructed, he does not delve into the inefficiencies or otherwise that obtain within the company or firm with which he is dealing. That is not so in the case of a local authority and certainly not within the code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales.
Perhaps I ought to make it clear that I and those for whom I speak welcome any moves in order that an auditor in his more extended capacity in local government can contribute to assist a local authority to become more efficient so that all wasteful expenditure can be avoided. That will indeed be very welcome, and I think that my own profession would take easily to it as a public duty. The sole point is really whether it should be spelt out in the particular form in which it has been spelt out here.
We can pass over the code of practice in so far as it relates to independence, or in so far as it deals with the responsibility of auditors to plan their work. These are quite commonplace matters. They are already enshrined in most of the professional bodies' own charters and in their own statements of practice. So, from the outside auditors' point of view, we really do not need to be lectured on the necessity for independence. We do not need to be lectured on the necessity to plan our work or on the conduct of an audit. These are all matters which are our professional responsibility: and indeed in another context I remember a Minister of the Crown sitting opposite lecturing me when the new Companies Bills were going through. I ventured to suggest that they ought to particularise a little more, and the Minister's reply to me and to the House on that occasion was, "We can leave it to the good sense of the professional bodies concerned". The Audit Commission has not left it to the good sense of the professions concerned: it has spelt it out in very considerable detail.
If I may. I should like to refer to some of the extra responsibilities that are laid upon the auditor in

77
relation to value for money. In addition to his normal duties, he has to pay particular attention to:
"Systems of planning, budgeting and controlling revenue and capital expenditure … Manpower management … Arrangements concerned with the proper management of all the assets of the authority … Arrangements designed to take advantage of economies of scale or skill, particularly in procurement of goods and services. Specific initiatives that have been taken to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the performance of the wide variety of duties which have to be carried out by the authority."
I detect a slight political intonation there. A slight departure from the apolitical is that we have to have "specific initiatives" to cover:
"the wide variety of duties which have to be carried out by the local authority."
That seems to indicate a pre-formed view that the less services that are carried out by the authority, the more advantageous it is going to be. The question I have to ask the noble Lord is: why has there been no reference to specific initiatives to investigate the efficiency or otherwise of private contractors by whom work has been carried out?
It would be very interesting to see what would happen if the Audit Commision, or the auditors in charge, had an opportunity to review, for example, the accounts of the Borough of Wandsworth and the Borough of Merton, which have conducted a series of experiments in substituting private contractors to undertake work formerly carried out by direct labour. I am a little surprised that there is no specific reference to them, becuase over the past few weeks there have been in the press numerous examples which quite clearly have revealed that in some cases—I do not want to enlarge the number—the privatisation of services has cost the local authority a good deal more money than if things had been left as they were. The question I have to ask the noble Lord is whether under this code those specific instances will in fact be brought to light and to the attention of the public?
The other new responsibilities of the auditors, over and above those which auditors in commerce and industry normally carry out, are to ensure the,
"Proper codification of responsibilities, authority and accountability",
and to monitor,
"results against predetermined performance objectives and standards".
These are really quite formidable tasks, if they are to be done diligently, as I am quite sure the noble Lord would wish, and thoroughly.
The noble Lord made a point that within the code itself there is specific mention of political neutrality. It has been made quite clear that it is not the auditor's function to question policy. That is a very general term. But what about decisions which reflect policy, or the generality of the policy—matters which normally are the responsibility of local officials and the councillors to whom they are responsible?
Under the code, the new auditor has an additional responsibility. First of all he has to pay attention to,
"Whether policy objectives have been determined, and policy decisions taken.".
This is quite normal, and it establishes the legality of what is done. Then he has to pay attention,
"To what extent policy objectives are set, and decisions based, on sufficient, relevant and reliable financial and other data, and with the critical underlying assumptions made explicit".
78
The words are explicit, and what they mean is that it is the auditor who really has to decide whether local councillors reach decisions on the basis of adequate data. I should have thought that that was the responsibility of the councillors, or of the councils themselves, and indeed of their officials. The code then refers to,
"Whether there are satisfactory arrangements for considering alternative options, including the identification, selection and evaluation of certain options".
I can understand that advice being tendered to councils, at their request, upon calling in consultants on a particular aspect. But to make it a statutory duty it is in effect a statutory duty—because it is prescribed—to go into all these matters is surely to introduce something totally different into the whole sphere of local government. There are several other points on those lines.
Then we reach paragraph 43 (f), and it is here where I think the auditor's decision, or view, may begin to impinge upon policy. The auditor has to decide in his mind, and has to pay attention to,
"Whether the costs of alternative levels of service. … have been considered, and are reviewed as costs change".
So is it to be the auditor who is to go along to a committee of the council and to the council, or to the officials, and say, "Well, of course, if you reduced home help from four days a week to two days, you could save this amount of money"? Is it required that the auditors should seek to assess the services on that basis? Is it right that when establishing a particular level of service the council should feel that it might be subject to criticism because it has decided not to cut down on that level on the grounds that it sees the value of the service as being commensurate with the cost? I should like the noble Lord's clarification on that.
Moreover, as the noble Lord is well aware and as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is also well aware, the determination of cost effectiveness, or value for money, over a very wide spectrum of local authority activities, is almost impossible. Some of the home and domiciliary services, some of the education services and so on, would defy, with knowledge as it is at the present time, any concept of whether this or that level of education comprises value for money or does not. These are matters normally outside the audit sphere. This is not to say—I repeat it for the noble Lord—that those of us on this side do not wish to see local authority services carried out with the utmost efficiency and effectiveness. Surely, every citizen must want this. But when, lurking in the background, there are highly trained personnel, known to be querying practically every aspect of decision making and practically every detail, it is not a very encouraging atmosphere in which to carry out local authority work, apart from the time taken to do the work. Speaking as an auditor who likes to he very thorough in his work, I should have to spend many hours if I were to carry out this code. I pass to the additional responsibilities of the auditor in connection with the interest of the public. Unlike the auditor of a commercial company, the auditor under this code, as under the former Local Government Act, has to give information to objectors. If your Lordships have read the report of a debate in another place of 28th July, they will be aware that the honourable

79
Member for Leicester, South rose to his feet and asserted that he had made 17 representations to the district auditor on a particular subject. One can imagine the time that is spent by an auditor in dealing with an objector of that kind. I do not say that he should not do it. I am merely saying that, for a private auditing firm, the cost of getting out the papers, of interviewing this particular Member of Parliament, of making all the necessary inquiries and reporting back, and of holding a series of 17 interviews together with all the ancillary work, would have been very significant. Under the old district audit system, it would have been lost in the broad general cost of district audit work, which was remunerated on a salary basis.
I pass now to the reporting of the auditor. In addition to his normal opinion that he has to give, he is required to draw to the attention of the public any matters that he considers, after complying with the code and the inquiries, should be so drawn. The code does not say exactly how he is going to draw the public's attention to the matter. Presumably, he has to publish something or someone will publish it for him. He has to prepare it. I am not disputing the principle. But it will he very time-consuming, as indeed will be the additional compilation of a management letter to the authority itself drawing attention to the various defects, real or imagined, that he has unearthed. All this is not going to make for the saving of time.
I turn to the form of opinion which is put on the various attachments to the code itself, where the auditor has to state that, in his opinion, the statement of accounts presents fairly, in accordance with the accounting policy set out, the financial position of the authority. We in the auditing profession wonder why the term "presents fairly" was selected instead of, as is normal in the auditing profession, the "true and fair" certificate that is required in the case of limited companies, where we certify that the accounts present a true and fair view. What is wrong with the audit of a local authority being certified on the basis of true and fair? Indeed, if your Lordships recall the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, when it came to the preparation of accounts in respect of functional works being carried out by maintenance departments of the local authority. the accounts and the balance sheet are required to show a true and fair view.
Why depart from "true and fair view" in the certificate that is required? After all, the auditor in his normal practice uses both "true" and "fair". Why do we use these words? It is because we are enjoined by our own professional codes to present the truth as we see it. But we also have to present it fairly. It is possible to present the truth marshalled in such a way—put in certain type or without notation—that, even though it may be true, it is not fair. That is why my profession always adopts "true and fair".
Why, then, "presents fairly"? I think that it is possibly a consciousness of the knowledge that the accounts of local authorities, on their present structure, cannot present a true and fair view of the affairs of the local authority. There is one very good reason. The accounts of a local authority, unlike those of a limited company or commercial enterprise, are
80
not required to disclose to the public the assets that the authority owns. To certify the accounts of a local authority as true and fair would make it necessary for its asset position to be disclosed. This was brought out clearly in the Layfield Report, to which reference was made many times in the course of proceedings on the Bill. Is it precisely because of the terms of the opinion, as presenting fairly, that the Audit Commission considers itself absolved from making any observation on how the assets of a local authority are being used?
Will the noble Lord answer this question? There are a number of local authorities who, under directions from the Government and, indeed, by legislation, have been selling houses at half price. Someone has to determine the price of a house and therefore to value it in order to determine what half price is. It is therefore no case to say that a local authority cannot, or finds it impracticable to, evaluate its assets.
I want to ask whether the auditors will be instructed to reveal to the local electorates how much loss has been incurred of ratepayers' money, paid over many years, by reason of selling off properties at half price. Will it be their responsibility to disclose that?
I should like to ask the noble Lord a further question. It is well known that, where many local authority services have been privatized, the equipment of the local authority has been sold to the new private contractor. I should like to know whether the accounts produced, or the audit report thereon, under the audit code, will be obliged to inform the public what losses have been incurred in flogging off the equipment to the private contractors who have taken over the job.
It is no case to say that local authority accounts have always been drawn up in the way in which they are now and that therefore it is not in the public interest to change them. The Minister himself has taken power under Section 23 of the Act to prescribe the form of accounts that a local authority shall keep. Presumably he did not take that power frivolously. Why therefore will not the Minister direct the local authorities to prepare accounts in such a way that the electors can arrive at a true and fair view not only as to the way in which the income of the local authorities be used but also as to the way in which the capital resources of the local authority, accumulated over the years and costing the ratepayers considerable sums of money, are being used or are being disposed of? It is within the option of the Minister exactly to make those directions so that the accounts of a local authority can present a true and fair view.
I would much have preferred—and, indeed, my profession would have preferred—the Code of Local Government Audit Practice to lay down a series of guidelines which would have been readily understood by the profession and which would have been applied by them diligently and with due regard to value for money in the work that they do. It is true that my profession were consulted about this; but I am bound to say that the amendments made at a later stage by the Consultative Committee on Accountancy Bodies did not find any particular echo in the code with which we are now confronted. So it would be quite unfair to suggest that the code as now written has the full support of the Consultative Committee on Accountancy Bodies. That is no reason of course for the House to take a dim view of it. The accountancy profession is

81
a separate interest and the House—and, indeed, the Government—have to consider a wide diversity of interests outside those of the profession to which I have the honour to belong. But we think—and we are experienced practitioners in this—that it is very unwise to issue a directive (because that is what it is) of this kind which will be most difficult to carry out in practice if it is to be done, as I believe the noble Lord wishes it to be done, with a degree of thoroughness for which my profession is I hope held in high esteem. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will take advantage of those provisions of the Act which enable this code to be revised. There is I believe a statutory provision after five years.
I have tried to address the noble Lord in as reasonable terms as it is possible for me to address him on this subject. He and I have had many conversations about this and I did give his private office notice that I was going to raise matters of this kind. I hope that the noble Lord will take note of what I have said, with a view to seeing whether even at this late stage it is possible to introduce amendments which, while not cutting across in any way his general drive which we entirely support, are far more practicable and in the end will become more cost effective.
My final question to the noble Lord is as follows. Will he take steps to ensure that the Audit Commission itself publishes its accounts with due regard to all the relevant factors that have been outlined in the code of practice so that we shall have an opportunity, following its first report, to be able to judge just whether we have had good value for money or not?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to thank the noble Lord for introducing this Motion with his customary persuasiveness. It seemed to me that the noble Lord dwelt in his speech particularly on two sections; namely:
"Report in the Public Interest".
paragraphs 23 to 29; and
"Responsibility of Auditor in relation to value for money",
paragraphs 40 to 44.
I have only one question which I want to ask the noble Lord. Does not the requirement not to interfere with policy matters—and that is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to as "political neutrality"—put the auditor in an impossible position in relation to the guidelines under paragraphs 23 to 29 and 40 to 44?
It will not surprise the noble Lord if I tell him that that leads me inevitably back to the Islington affair which we debated before the Recess. Can the noble Lord tell me where the auditor would have stood in that case under this code? If the auditor has no status in such matters, would not the noble Lord agree that the case for legislation against that particular abuse of public funds remains very valid?
Lord Sandford: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced and explained this code, although perhaps it is stretching the terms of that convention to put it quite like that when there have been only seven of us in the Chamber. Nevertheless, we are grateful. I think that local government is grateful, too.
82
It is true that there have been consultations with all the associations and, despite the strictures of the noble Lord opposite, which certainly came from a rather different source, I think it is true to say that the local government associations—not only the ADC but also the AMA—are content with the code.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, intimated—and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, too, with this rather wider range of responsibility stretching into economy, efficiency and effectiveness—it will not be all that easy to distinguish between inquiries into those factors and inquiries into matters of policy. But we are grateful to the commission for having spelt out that distinction more clearly and we are also grateful to the noble Lord who has done so tonight as well. But again as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, quite rightly said from his experience, all this extra work will cost a great deal more.
Local government wants to hear—and if we can hear it tonight from the noble Lord so much the better—what the extra cost of this will be—not in terms of pounds of course but in terms of the percentage increase in the cost of auditing. Local government is under a great deal of pressure both from their own ratepayers and from the Government to economise and we do not want to face extra costs, as undoubtedly we do here, without the House knowing what that extra amounts to.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, first, I thank your Lordships who have contributed to this discussion and I certainly thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his detailed observations. I thank him very much for having been in communication beforehand. It is always most helpful when that happens because it enables one to give a more detailed reply at the time.
I should like to try to deal with the various points. First, let me make it clear that to the best of my knowledge the accountancy profession generally has expressed itself to be very happy with the code. I say that based upon what I am told and following up the reservation which the noble Lord had earlier. There may very well be those in the profession who are less happy than others, but that is what I am told and it is obviously very important that it should be so.
Let me deal first with the specific question as to what I would say about the term, "and with due regard" about which the noble Lord spoke at some length. Section 14(1) requires the commission to prepare a code which will prescribe the way in which auditors are to carry out their functions. Therefore, the code must be followed. Discretion to pick and choose which parts to follow cannot be given, and it is not impossible for all of the code to be covered by auditors. I am not sure how far the noble Lord will think that is adequate. We are talking here about technical definitions, and I say of this, as I say of anything else to which I may refer in a moment, that if the noble Lord thinks that what I am saying is inadequate he knows that I will gladly follow it up if he raises it with me.
However, I want to comment on some of his other points. He referred to concern in a political connotation. He asked: why no reference to specific initiatives of private contractors? He mentioned Wandsworth and Merton, and he called them experiments. I wish he had not done that. I do not consider them to be experiments at all. I consider them to be

83
natural extensions of the process of finding out how you can provide a service at a lower cost; because the fact is that they are not costing more, they are costing less—very much less. Exactly how much less will come out when the auditor draws attention to it, as he presumably will if he thinks it is proper to do so. But he may in fact consider that, if there are political overtones, it is something that he would rather not do. However, that would he for the auditor to decide at the time.
The noble Lord said that if the authority had reduced its number of home-helps the auditors may care to suggest that that was a good or a bad thing. For myself, I should not have thought that the auditor would get anywhere near commenting upon whether that was good or bad. He may draw attention only to the cost to the whole of the authority, but he would certainly not make any observations as to the politics of it. Indeed, what comes out very clearly from what I have said about the code is the extreme extent to which the commission, whose own code it is, has gone to emphasise, to stress, its concern not in any way to be involved with policy decisions. I must say that when I read it I was very impressed by that. I think that when the noble Lord, who is very assiduous in the way in which he goes into these matters, looks very carefully at that he will not need to be as concerned as he is.
The noble Lord specifically asked what would be said about a situation where an authority had sold council houses and given a discount of, say, 50 per cent. He asked whether the auditor would then disclose how much had been lost. He would presumably put the same question as to whether the auditor had a duty to say how much profit had been made. I would suggest that unless he felt it had an impact of significance upon the accounts the auditor would not normally go into that, but it would be for him to decide and clearly I would not want to say.
Then the noble Lord asked whether the auditor would tell the public how much had been lost in "flogging off equipment". I might have referred to it slightly differently, but I know what the noble Lord means. I would apply the same response. He asked whether the auditor would have the duty to report to the public on how much profit had been made. I suspect that unless it was in itself significant in the context of the totality of the accounts, he probably would not; but again it would be a decision that he would have to make at the time in the light of the totality of the accounts he was auditing.
The noble Lord raised the point about "true and fair", which seemed to worry him a great deal. This is certainly a very technical point. I think that the commercial term "true and fair certificate" was not considered appropriate to local authority accounts, which are primarily designed to show the financial position rather than the state of affairs. The code, excluding the forms of opinion, has of course been agreed with the Audit Practices Committee of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. So certainly the noble Lord has me at a disadvantage in what is clearly a highly technical term. But, again, if he is not satisfied with what I say on that he will come back to me and he knows that I will pursue the point still further.
84
The noble Lord asked whether the Minister will direct local authorities on how to prepare accounts. No, certainly we would not do that; they would not take kindly to us doing that. Apart from everything else, what will result from the work of the commission—and it is what we have said all the time—is that there will be greater standardisation of accounts. It must be right that there should be. After all, authorities want to draw meaningful comparisons. They know very well if there are circumstances which explain the difference in cost for the provision of a service in their local situation. In my former incarnation, in order to have pointed out that it costs more or less for my authority to provide a service than others, I would never have had the slightest concern that comparisons were drawn. I am sure that if others have proper explanations it will not trouble them, either.
Indeed, I go further. Frankly, I would want to know that there are others who are doing something else. Perhaps I can learn from them. That is what local government is very much about, as the noble Lord himself knows. The noble Lord went on to say that, although this was passed in another place, there may yet be time for amendments. I should not have thought that that was likely. Indeed, tonight I am asking your Lordships to confirm this Motion and to approve this code of practice. I hope that, with all his reservations expressed, at least the noble Lord will feel able to support that. I feel sure he will.
My noble friend Lord Sandford was concerned about costs. Yes, in view of the extra work which they will be carrying out it is very likely that the fees will be more than was previously the case. But surely what is important here is that, if we believe that value-for-money auditing can achieve a great deal, it should very much more than repay an audit of this kind of information that it will produce. I am very enthusiastic about that aspect of it. The betterment that an authority can achieve by having what I believe the auditor will produce by way of value-for-money experience and knowledge will, I think, offset time and time again any additional fees that there may be.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked where the auditors would have stood in the Islington situation which he previously described. To the best of my knowledge I do not think that they would have been involved in that at all. In fact, the auditor would have been in a pretty impossible position in many ways. I agree that he may be in a difficult position in deciding whether expenditure is or is not lawful on some occasions, but, then, the auditors have had some experience of dealing with these matters. I think that the noble Lord's genuine complaint there is rather more against the state of the law than the state of the auditor who has to decide on the extent to which what is taking place is within the law. But that is for another occasion.
I am grateful to those who have spoken on this rather complex subject. Frankly, personally I am enthusiastic about what we have here; I am very impressed. I think that the Audit Commission has done an extremely fine job in drawing up this comprehensive document so quickly. As I have said, the local authority associations and the accountancy bodies have been fully involved in the preparation of the

85
code. I think that it provides a sound professional framework for the work of the auditor in safeguarding the public interest and in ensuring that ratepayers' money is well spent. With that, I hope that your Lordships will be able to accept the Motion. I certainly commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.58 p.m. to eight o'clock.]

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
Consideration on Report resumed.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 17, line 38, at end insert ("or the information is held for or acquired in the course of carrying out social work in relation to the data-subject")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments, with one or two more to Clause 29, is designed to reopenthe discussion we had in Committee on the difficult problem of exemptions from the subject's access rights to social work records. Here I want to make it clear that I am specifically avoiding the question of medical records. I understand, through discussion with my old friend and colleague Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd, who is chairman of the Patients' Association, that things are still under discussion with the DHSS and they are hoping to move things later on, perhaps in another place but not here tonight. Therefore, I am dealing this evening only with the problem of social work records.
The principles involved apply today really more to manual records than to those to which this Bill applies, which is computerised records; but increasingly we have to expect manual records to be kept in a form available and ready to be put on a computer. Anyway, I do not see how one can discuss the one without the other, so I make no apology for treating the problem rather generally.
With the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 to Clause 21, and Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 to Clause 29 at the same time.
Amendment No. 18: Page 17, line 38, at end insert—
("; and
(c).if he cannot comply with that request without disclosing the identity of a person who has requested that his identity remain confidential where that person, not acting in a professional capacity, has given information to government departments, local authorities, voluntary organizations or other bodies carrying out social work in relation to the data subject;")
Amendment No. 19: Page 17, line 38, at end insert—
(";and
(d) if the request is for access to information held for, or acquired in the course of, carrying out social work in relation to the data subject, and the request is made by a parent whose
86
child is the data subject, and that data subject does not consent to such access by the parent; unless, in the event of a dispute as to a child's capacity, a court has ruled that the child does not have the capacity to consent; and where a court has so ruled, or where the lack of capacity is not in dispute, a parent shall have a right of access, save that one parent shall not be entitled to see confidential information about the other without, where practicable, obtaining the parent's consent.")
Amendment No. 20: Page 17, line 39, after ("(b)") insert ("(and (c)")
Amendment No. 35: Clause 29, page 22, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 37: Page 22, line 26, leave out subsection (3).
This is not an easy subject. I raise it in a probing spirit and not a controversial one. Our proposal is to exclude social-work records from the exemptions contained in Clauses 21 and 29, with the exceptions in my two amendments, Nos. 18 and 19, which are added to Clause 21(4). These two amendments are proposed on the assumption that Clause 29(2), and preferably (3) as well, be deleted. These amendments are also to satisfy the most serious exceptions indicated in the DHSS circular to which I shall refer later.
As a result of these changes in the Bill—if they are accepted—clients of social work would have a general right to access to anything filed about them, with the two special exceptions in my two amendments referred to. It would not be necessary therefore for the Secretary of State to have special powers to override this right—the special powers which are given to him in Clause 29. As to whether a refusal to respond to a request for information was or was not covered by one of the exceptions, the Minister himself has suggested that a right of appeal should exist, so the intervention of the Secretary of State would not be needed.
I hope that this is a clear statement of what we are trying to do. In a sense we are doing it the other way round from the Bill. We are giving the clients of social work reports a total right to information about what is said about them with the two exceptions which I have listed and which we shall discuss. The right response of anybody who does not entirely agree with us in my opinion would be to add further exceptions, but not to go back to the principles of the Bill as they stand.
I hope, as I have said, that this is a clear statement of what we are trying to do. Whether our series of amendments does it effectively is something on which the Government will doubtless have a good deal to say. I readily concede that there may be technical faults in our drafting, but the Government have brilliant draftsmen to draw on if they agree that our way is better than the much looser method in the Bill. I would particularly draw the attention of the House to the proposed amendment to Clause 21(4)(d) which deals with the issue of social work files and third party information. It is quite normal for files of this sort to contain such information, and to exclude subject access on this ground would unjustifiably deny social work clients access to the reasons for many of the significant decisions made about them.
I should like to quote here, without mentioning names, the procedures in one large county social services department. This operates on a country-wide system with a central computer jointly available to the social services department, the health authority, and the police. Clients have no access to the information

87
on file, and staff are discouraged from mentioning the existence of files. Joint use of the computer must mean that the files are available to the police. This is only one anonymous example but it is a well-documented one, and one can assume that there are similar systems elsewhere in operation.
It seems to me clear that my amendment that we discussed last, No. 16, enforcing data protection principle No. 7, is really most necessary. The least we need is that any client can ask (a) whether there is a file on his or her case; and, (b), what is in it. Under my amendments, (a) could in no circumstances be refused; and (b) could be refused only if it could be shown that the material was covered by (4)(c) and (4)(d), which are my two amendments in question.
I should like to say a word now about the reasons for this proposed change. My noble friend raised the same general point in rather a different way in Committee in our discussions on Clause 29. Incidentally, there were no amendments to Clause 21 in Committee. The Minister, during the discussions, said:
"The Government are convinced that there are difficult issues here that should only be resolved after the fullest consultation." [Official Report, 21/7/83; col. 1305.]
There has been discussion—perhaps a little hurried—and the DHSS circular LAC(83)(14) of 24th August is the result. This recognises the major change in the thinking of social work organisers and social workers about the correct attitude to clients, but it does not go far enough for most of the people concerned.
In Committee, I referred to the views of the family service units, with which I had previously been connected, and my noble friend mentioned the British Association of Social Workers and the Children's Legal Centre. These three organisations and most others working in the same field, including the National Council for One Parent Families, MIND and the National Association of Young People in Care, are disappointed at the circular's failure to make a clean break. Their views amount to the belief that social work records should be kept in such a way that they are confined to facts rather than opinions. The British Association of Social Workers' document on this subject goes so far as to say:
"A records system should reflect the fact that the perception, interpretation and recording of complex human interaction is always biased by the personal make up of the recorder and the social context in which the records system is created and used and therefore should he designed in a way which minimises these effects".
It goes on:
"It should reflect the fact that recording is a residual activity which will be done when no more important activity is required".
It goes on to say:
"Restricted information on an individual, collective or family file should be kept separately with a note being made on the file that information exists which is restricted and its whereabouts.".
These extracts show how completely the attitude of the social worker has changed in the last 10 years or so. In my day confidentiality was a fundamental factor in the notes which workers exchanged with one another about their clients. The reaction against this is healthy and ultimately it may well be more disturbing to a client to be told that, for whatever reason, he or she cannot see what is in his or her file than to see the
88
contents of the file, whatever it may contain. The same point was made earlier this evening.
It has taken me a good deal of thought to come round to this view as my past experience has been so different. But most social workers are young and this House, not notable for its youthfulness, should try to legislate for them and their clients and not for their grandfathers.
There are long and weighty arguments which I could have used, but we are at Report stage and must be concise. The noble Lord the Minister knows the arguments and has doubtless seen the documents on which they are based. He is aware of the fundamental change in attitude to clients which is taking place. I hope I have said enough to give a full and frank airing to these views, which are very strongly held by social work clients and their representatives and by a large section of the new generation of social workers. I beg to move.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as my noble friend has reminded us, we had a discussion on some of these difficult problems when we covered the order-making powers in Clause 29 at the previous stage. The Minister then said that those provisions had been included to allow full consultation to be undertaken before, with a view to deciding what restrictions on the right of subject access there should be, if any, in relation to medical and social records. One can appreciate that, when the Bill first saw the light of day, it would have been impossible to define the limits on subject access. Therefore, as originally drafted, it was necessary to give the Secretary of State an unfettered discretion to restrict that right where personal data were held for carrying out social work in relation to the data subject, if the Secretary of State considered that otherwise the carrying out of that work was likely to be prejudiced.
I should remind your Lordships that it was only a week before the previous discussion that we received the Government's consultation documents. I thought it was a little unfair of the Minister to complain at that time that he was given only 55 hours' notice of the amendments that we then tabled, when we had read the consultation documents, taken advice on them, drafted our amendments and tabled them between a week and three days before the debate took place. I do not think that it was bad going to have given a preliminary airing to the subject after only four days' study of the documents.
My noble friend and I have now had the opportunity of further discussion with the various organisations that he mentioned. We concluded that, out of all the contra-indications to disclosure which were mentioned in the two discussion papers, the protection of sources of information and the protection of children from their parents, which are points (c) and (e) in Paper I, are valid.
We thought it was essential to social work that a person should be able to give information without risking disclosure of his or her identity. The obvious example is that of a neighbour who sees or hears evidence of an assault on a child living next door. That neighbour should be able to give the facts to a social worker knowing that it would not lead to unpleasant

89
confrontation with the alleged assailant. That was one of the paragraphs dealt with by my noble friend's amendment. We were convinced also by the argument in Paper I that the interests of parents and children may not always coincide. We think that that should be recognised explicitly in the Bill.
Paper II says that children's rights are the same as those of adults, but, if the child is incapable of exercising the right by reason of his or her age, the parent or guardian may exercise the right of subject access on behalf of the child. Our amendment would stop that parent from accessing records unless the child consents or a court has ruled that the child does not have the capacity to consent.
In the opposite direction, we were not satisfied that the damage to reputations or relationships which might follow disclosure of information on the data subject's file to third parties justified the withholding of the entire record under Clause 21(3)(b). We have dealt with that in the second of our amendments to that clause. We appreciate that opinions on this matter vary considerably among professionals in client organisations and that some people maintain that social workers may restructure their records in order to exclude froma particular individual's file information which may be highly relevant about other family members or associates. The obvious way of dealing with that problem would be to specify a field in the data subject's record in which the file's references to other relevant individuals would be stored.
It was interesting to note that, on the form used by the county council to which my noble friend referred for recording the information then to be fed into the computer, the only information asked for on other members of the household was the name, date of birth, sex and marital status. That was factual information which would be known to the client himself or herself. If there was relevant information on other members of the household which the social worker needed to access in full consideration of a particular client's case, the social worker would need to look into more than one record. I understand that they sometimes keep whole families on one record when they are held in manual form: but it is an incidental result of computerisation that that will become more difficult. So I think that, because social workers will need to reconsider very carefully the form in which their records are kept, it may not be so difficult as was presented to us by some of our advisers to separate out the individual records of members of families one from another.
I must say that we were agreeably surprised by the tone of the DHSS consultation papers, and we welcome also the recognition in the Government's circular No. LAC 83/14, to which my noble friends have referred. Nowadays, the emphasis has shifted towards the right of subjects to know what is reported and away from the right of officials to say anything that they please about individuals under the cloak of a blanket of complete secrecy. I particularly welcome the forthright statement in Paragraph 4:
"The Secretary of State believes that the need to refuse requests from clients to know what is said about them in case records will arise only exceptionally."
That shift needs to be visible in the Bill itself instead of being left to show itself in other orders, and we hope
90
very much that the Minister will accept these amendments.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with this complex series of amendments we return to the difficult question of the extent to which the right of subject access should apply to social work records. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, both for his notice and for his patient exposition of the intention of these amendments, because I have found them a little difficult to follow. Now let me recap on their effect. Clause 29(2) provides the Secretary of State with an order-making power to exempt from the right of subject access or to modify that right in relation to social work records. As I explained during Committee stage, we have included this power because, while there is general agreement that some special provision will be needed concerning subject access to such records, the precise nature of that provision must depend upon the views of the practitioners in that field. That is why the Department of Health and Social Security issued a consultative document on the content of the order under Clause 29(2), ensuring that the relevant professions and other interested parties had a full opportunity to express their views. Responses to their document, I gather, are still arriving. As I have said earlier, I think that about two-thirds have arrived, and we await others. The department has yet to digest fully the representations that it has received.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, puts before us a proposition to consider that we should do away with the order-making power in Clause 29(2), and, in the process, he also does away with subsection (3), although that applies equally to the order-making power under Clause 29(1) concerning health records, which ought perhaps to be retained. However, I let that go.
In its stead, these amendments would provide two new paragraphs in Clause 21(4) setting out two circumstances in which subject access to social work records may be refused. I gather that what the noble Lord fears is that the Government have it in mind to allow more grounds for refusing subject access to social work data than he wishes to see. Certainly the Government in the consultative document on the Clause 29(2) order, have set out certain possible ideas which allow for further grounds for refusing access than would be permitted under the noble Lord's amendments. Equally, in a recent circular referring to the general issue of access to records, manual as well as computerised, the DHSS, after consultation, has indicated that it sees those further grounds as being justified. It suggested, for example, that access might be limited in certain cases to protect the subject or to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive judgments, or to prevent access to information about other individuals covered by the same record.
In a profoundly interesting speech, the noble Lord argued that certain of the professional bodies concerned believed that it would be unduly restrictive to withhold access to that extent; and he sides with those bodies. I do not for a moment underestimate the force of the views of the bodies cited by the noble Lord, but I understand that expert opinion is not all on one side and that various other organisations, commenting

91
on the question of access to records generally, felt that the DHSS proposals struck broadly the right balance. These included the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Residential Care Association and the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations.
Therefore, I respectfully submit to your Lordships that what this demonstrates is the need to allow adequate time—and I am sorry that noble Lords feel that such time ought already to have been adequate; but, frankly, it has not been so—for the fullest consideration of these difficult issues and of the differing and sometimes conflicting views being expressed. It would be wrong to pre-empt all further consideration by setting the exemptions in tablets of stone now. I do not think that that is what the noble Lord is proposing. I think he is proposing that we should at least adopt an attitude now which forecloses answers other than those which he himself favours.
I do not think that I or the Secretary of State, or the Department of Health and Social Security and its Ministers, would wish to foreclose any of the options remaining open until they had considered all the views expressed, both those which have come to hand and those which are awaited. I think that there is nothing dilatory or pusillanimous about that: I think it is a matter of proper prudence. If we ought to have had the information earlier, well, I regret it; but since we do not have it we are in the position of having to await it.
The issuing of the circular on the general question of access to social work records does not mean that the Government have effectively taken decisions on the exemptions to be granted from subject access to computerised records, although I accept that a sensible starting point would be the presumption that the same arrangements should be adopted for both types of record. The Bill creates a different situation raising new issues by conferring a legal right of access; and different provisions may, therefore, be necessary. No final decisions have yet been taken with regard to the contents of the Clause 29(2) order.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also contributed a most interesting dilation on what I can best describe as the cascade of levels of confidentiality envisaged by him and his noble friends. Those I shall refer to my colleagues with great interest. But I think I made clear that there are broad reasons why the Government think it appropriate to deal with the subject access to social work records as the Bill proposes, thus not closing any doors. There are, as the noble Lord suggested, a number of drafting defects. I do not think that that affects my judgment at all. I am not addressing myself to them. I would hope that what I have said will persuade the House that the Bill as cast adopts the proper approach and that the noble Lord would agree that I have justified what we now propose.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there is not the slightest doubt that this is a most difficult part of our consideration. Quite a different approach has to be made, as has been pointed out, to medical records from the considerations which apply to social workers' records. Almost the only consideration in regard to medical records is whether or not it is for the good of the patient to know what is upon them. But when we get
92
to the question of social records, very different considerations apply. On one side, are you limiting the power of the social worker to do good by limiting the things that he records? On the other side, are you stopping someone from pointing out that there is a grave error?—and grave errors have administratively occurred in many directions affecting mental health and things of that kind. Are you stopping him or her from putting right what is wrongly on a record by withholding the information from the client of the social worker?
I feel, and my friends feel with me—although this is by no means something which political parties can deal with on the basis of a political decision because it is very much a human matter on which one can hold very different views without any consideration of party loyalty—as I tried to express before, that to leave a matter of this kind to the haphazard future that it might have by way of statutory instruments or orders-in-council is to divest Parliament of a heavy responsibility which Parliament ought not to shift in this way.
I repeat—and I hope the noble Lord the Minister will not think me a nag for doing it—that with a Bill which appears for the second time before Parliament, with all the intervening space that has occurred as a result of the Bill's having died in the last Session, not to have accumulated all the relevant information from the bodies concerned and to have assimilated that information and come forward with a judgment so that this House and another place might debate it is, if I may say so, quite irresponsible. I am left with the suspicion that the reason nobody has tried to expedite this is because it is a very difficult decision that the Government would have to make in affording guidance. One does not make a decision any easier by leaving it to an order-in-council with, as I say, the procedure in regard even to an affirmative resolution, one that we well know.
I leave the Dispatch Box with complete unhappiness in the sense that there is no proper guidance upon this matter. I am so grateful, as are my noble friends, to the mover of this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for having brought out these principles perfectly fairly and properly and for saying that they are doing it for the purpose of achieving a discussion of these matters which is so vital. If the Government have to leave it by opposing this amendment and saying, "Leave it until the consultation is over and it may be that will be a date after the other place has considered this matter and this has become an Act of Parliament", I repeat that this is a very unhappy state of affairs. It is one which, if I may say so—and I am not trying to use dramatic language—has some flavour of cowardice about it in front of what is a very, very vital matter for so many social workers and so many clients of social workers.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not the custom for Ministers to join in twice on other people's amendments, but I feel I must respond to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just contributed. I am not concerned to defend the Government's record as to the speed with which they have sought advice because I do not think that is

93
germane to our debate; but I do say it is necessary to have the advice in order to make the right decision. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that the decision should not be remitted by Parliament to another body. If that is right, then the proper answer to the argument is simply to detain or delay legislation until the advice is to hand. That was an alternative which presented itself to us when we first went for the advice. Because we saw that we could not get sufficient advice in time for legislation in the timetable, we decided to go for the order-making power. I think that was the right decision.
The noble Lord—and I am sure he will repent of this—suggested that this was a cowardly decision because the decision was going to be a difficult one to make. The degree of difficulty will depend very largely on the balance that is finally presented in the different bodies of advice given to the Government. If they are equally balanced it will be a difficult decision; if they are very preponderantly on one side it will be a great deal easier. I do not think, with respect, that the noble Lord advances his cause by suggesting that the Government are influenced by cowardice in this business. I do not intend to make an issue of it but I do think it would he imprudent to proceed ahead of the knowledge that we genuinely need to come to the right and, as it may prove, difficult conclusion. The way to do that is not to legislate now in one sense and to exclude the possibility of the other. The Government's mind is not made up: it will remain open.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the Government's mind is not made up. That takes us a long way because this is a changing situation in the thought of the people concerned. I have changed my mind completely in the past year as a result of talking to the people who are concerned. I am very surprised at having been able to do so; but I am quite clear that this is right and I hope the Government will follow.
I rely on my noble friend, if I may so call him, Lord Mishcon, to do the "rough stuff" and so I will not say any more—just as when we want to attack the Labour Party we rely entirely on the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. But I think I must say that the Second Reading of the original Bill was on the 20th January. I think something needs an explanation, although I do not ask for one tonight, because the consultative paper was sent out only in July. That is not a very prompt response to a new situation. My complaint is that this is what we get every time both from the Home Office and the DHSS. We get a very slow response to a new situation. This is a new situation: it is new to me and to my friends and to the noble Lord who is replying. It is new to all of my generation and a couple younger as well.
We used to regard confidentiality as the one thing you had to insist on, and the workers now do not like it. They are against it, I think to a man really. Some of the organisers of social work are on the other side; but there is hardly a single social worker in the field, so far as I can make out, who does not believe that access to what is recorded about you, not only in a computer but also manually—though that does not concern this Bill—should be available to you.
I do not want to go into all this again because we
94
have been through it before. I should like to say just one thing, and I refer to Clause 29(3). I shall not speak to it when we come to that amendment because we shall withdraw it but Clause 29(3) is absolutely extraordinary. It says:
"An order under this section may make different provision in relation to data consisting of information of different descriptions."
Could I have a short essay with a dozen examples of what that means? It seems to me almost entirely meaningless. I think that to give Secretaries of State the right to do something that is meaningless is going too far. So I say that when we come to this clause I shall not speak on it but I think we might take a verbal vote anyway, because it is really such nonsense.
Having said that, I said originally that this was a probing amendment. I wanted to get this matter discussed. It has been discussed and the people concerned on both sides will read what we have said. It will not end there. I think it has been useful and I appreciate the trouble that the noble Lord has taken in replying to us. On that note of sweet accord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
8.40 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Exercise of rights by data subject not to be condition of employment.

.—(1) It shall not be a condition of employment or of a contract for service or an offer of employment or of a contract for service or of the provision of goods or services that a data subject exercise his rights under Part III or furnishes to any person a copy of the file obtained in accordance with the provisions of Part III; and any person who attempts to impose such a condition shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of Part V of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 an employee shall be treated as unfairly dismissed if the reason or principal reason for his dismissal is that he has refused to exercise his rights as a data subject under Part III of this Act and/or that he has refused to furnish to his employer or any other person a copy of the file relating to him obtained in accordance with the provisions of Part III of this Act.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on the face of it, this would seem to be a somewhat academic matter, but it is not at all so. It is a provision regarding the possibility—which in the United States has proved to be more than that; namely, indeed, the probability—in respect of a certain type of employer, that he will seek to compel the employee to exercise his right as a data subject to be informed of what is on the record about him and then to communicate that information to his employer. This would require the employee to find out what there may be, or is, about him in some form of data processing and then to let the employer have that information. The employer may indeed ask that every six months he should be informed of what there is on whatever data process may be relevant about him; for example, a social security report. The employee would then be required to make that available to his employer and so perhaps be compelled to incriminate himself on something that may be erroneous, or be required to rectify what is erroneous and embark upon a wholly complex and possibly expensive procedure. Once a system of access if formalised, we fear that the practice may develop of some employers demanding some form of certificate

95
of good conduct from prospective or even current employees.
Curiously enough this matter arose in Washington, D.C. and was the subject of a report to a conference held in October, 1982, in the Inner Temple on computers and the law at which Commander Williams, the head of the National Identification Bureau, spoke. He indicated that this practice was, in fact, being used in Washington, D.C. to the intense anger, embarrassment and difficulty of the employees concerned. We think that any such practice would be intolerable. To be accurate, the relevant document would require regular up-dating, considerable expense for the employee and of course a heavy administrative burden on the staff of the index involved.
This experience in Washington, D.C. has proved to be not an idle and purely academic risk; and it is something which, now that this Bill is going through Parliament, will in due course become law. We think it right that the exercise of rights by a data subject ought not to be a condition of employment and, indeed, that any person attempting to impose such a condition on his employees should be guilty of an offence, as subsection (1) indicates. It would be a monstrous, as the French say, abus de pouvoir on the side of the employer and we feel that it ought to be legislated against, even as a possibility, at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has explained the concern which lies behind this amendment and it is a concern which I fully understand. It is, I think I am right in saying, the first time that it has been raised in the context of this Bill and I am afraid that we cannot do it the justice which we could have done it had he raised it at Committee stage; but I shall do my best. The noble and learned Lord is anxious lest the right of subject access should prove in some circumstances to be a hindrance rather than a help to data subjects; in particular, in the field of employment. This is a possibility which had not escaped us and we have, in fact, considered whether something might be done to avoid the sort of abuse which the noble and learned Lord has in mind.
There are however a number of difficulties. In the first place, it is not easy to see why a prospective employer should necessarily be prohibited in all circumstances from asking a job applicant for written confirmation—which is accessible by exercising the right of subject access—of certain details given by the applicant in his application form. After all, as things stand at present, if the applicant says that he has certain qualifications, nobody I think would object if the employer were to ask to see written evidence of them in the form of a certificate, an O-level or whatever. Similarly, there would I think be no objections to the manager of a road haulage firm asking prospective employees to produce a valid driving licence, which, unlike the O-level certificate, may reveal evidence of convictions for motoring offences. What then is the difference between these cases and others where we might say that a requirement to produce information by exercising subject access rights, was improper or unfair? I suspect that the answer lies in the circumstances of the individual case
96
and has nothing to do with the manner in which the information is obtained. In other words, much depends upon the type of information which is being sought and the relevance of that information in the particular circumstances. But the noble and learned Lord's amendment does not recognise such considerations and imposes an absolute ban on employers requiring information to be obtained for them by the data subject under Clause 21.
We are here very much in the field of employment practice, rather than data protection. We accept, after all, that an employer should be able to ask for references from an employee and that he may ask referees for as much detailed, personal information about the employee as he considers necessary and relevant. If this is not an unfair employment practice, I wonder whether it is right to say that it is unfair to ask the subject himself to provide the information. In either case, the subject may refuse to comply with the request and may as a result fail to get the job. But I am not sure why the employer who has asked directly for the information should be penalised while the one who has asked for the same information from a referee should not. It seems to me that if there is a problem here—and there may indeed well be—it is one which needs to be looked at in the context of employment practice generally and not simply against the background of data protection.
Moreover, it is I think worth pointing out that a provision of the sort proposed by the noble and learned Lord would be likely to give rise to a number of difficulties of enforcement. It is, after all, unlikely that an employer would put in writing a request to see a copy of data obtained by the subject under Clause 21 if he knew that it would be an offence to do so. Equally, successful applicants would have no reason to go to law. Any prosecution therefore would resolve itself into a dispute between a prospective employer and a disappointed applicant and I can foresee that there might be considerable difficulties in attempting to distinguish between genuine allegations and malicious ones prompted by a failure to get the job in question for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I have tried to explain the general range of difficult questions of both principle and practice raised by this amendment, which touches on very important ground. I do not suggest that it does not address an area which is well worth consideration. But I do suggest that it appears to be aimed at removing from prospective employers a right which at present they exercise without question—in most cases at least—and that it may present fairly considerable difficulties in enforcement. These are matters which would have to be teased out with some care before we concluded them in one one way or another. I certainly could not advise your Lordships to accept them in our present state of knowledge; and Report stage, I regret, does not offer a sufficient means of improving the amendment in this House. I am sorry that I cannot be more friendly to what the noble and learned Lord has said. I recognise that there is a matter of substance here, but I do not think that we can cope with it at this stage.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I did not quite understand the noble Lord's argument. As I see it, the amendment states that it shall not be a condition

97
of employment—not that the employer should be forbidden to ask the man to do it, but that it shall not be a condition of employment and any person who attempts to impose such a condition shall be guilty of an offence. The entire argument of the noble Lord seemed to me to be that there was no harm in the employer asking the man to do it. Of course there is not. The point is that he cannot enforce it. I do not know whether I have misunderstood both sides, but it seems to me that the amendment is perfectly clear and that the noble Lord's answeris entirely irrelevant to it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has indicated that there is a possibility of further consideration, even if for another place rather than in this House. That is a small step forward and I am grateful to him for it. When the Government give the matter further consideration, may I ask them to consider two things which were lacking from the noble Lord's statement?
First, the noble Lord gave a number of examples, which were quite incontrovertible, where an employer would have to seek confirmation of what was being claimed in terms of academic degrees, or a valid driving licence, or whatever it might be. Unless I misunderstand the amendment, this is not what either the amendment or the Bill are about. We are talking about data subjects. This is itself confidential and will be dealt with in Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. It may be that this amendment needs to be revised in order to make that absolutely clear, but information which is obtained under conditions of confidentiality and which, under the provisions of the Bill, is made available to the data subject is quite different in nature from that which is publicly available, such as a driving licence or an academic record. When the Government look at this matter again, they ought to make that distinction and consider a future amendment which takes into account that distinction.
The second point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made is that this is an issue of employment practice rather than of data protection. That is true of a large number of the subjects of this Bill. The Bill is about the way in which data processing impinges on all sorts of aspects of our lives, but the fact of the matter is that the availability of data processing and the possibility of abuse of data processed information affects employment practice as well as affecting various judicial practices and various social practices and other aspects of our life. It is no criticism of the attempt to include a provision of this kind in this legislation to say that this is a matter of employment practice. In so far as employment practice is changed by the availability of mechanically processed data, then it should be a part of the Bill.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, would it be helpful to reconsider the wording of the amendment so as to deal rather less ambiguously with the distinction between employment and prospective employment? It seemed to me, listening to the debate which has taken place, that you cannot impose conditions on a prospective employee because you have no sanctions on him. On the other hand, once he has become an employee, an inquest into his past ought surely to be brought to a close—a sort of res judicata. If the
98
wording could be redrafted so as to make it a little clearer that there is much more latitude in considering prospective employment than in imposing conditions on people who have been employed, I believe that it might be a way past the difficulty where the noble Lord. Lord Elton, wants to be helpful but cannot quite see how at this moment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl very often helps the House and I believe that he may have helped the House on this occasion, but I should like to add one very short point. In this Bill we are for the very first time affording rights to data subjects and casting duties upon data users. It would be an entirely wrong way of adapting the principles of this Bill if what we were doing was to give somebody outside both classes of data subject and data users rights which they never had before this Bill was passed. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey has said, we are not dealing with examples that the noble Lord the Minister gave of producing a driving licence, and so forth. That is there to be produced and is a perfectly proper requirement, and the driving licence will have endorsements upon it if they are there to be seen. It has got nothing to do with producing a certificate relating to the award of a diploma or degree. But what it does do for the very first time, if we are not careful, is that it enables an employer to say, whether by way of an offer of employment or the continuance of employment, that he wants to be sure that that person has rights under the Bill, that he wants to enforce those rights so far as that person is concerned, and that it is a condition of the offer of employment and of the continuance of employment that he applies under Part III of the Bill and produces it. This must be wrong.
However, the noble Lord the Minister has said—and it is a perfectly fair comment—that this point was not raised at the Committee stage. I say in all frankness that it was brought to the attention of my noble and learned friend and myself between Committee and Report stage, but I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will say at Third Reading what the Government's attitude is to this point and how far he can help, because I believe it is something which this House ought to attend to. We should not just leave it to another place.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, so many of your Lordships have trailed your coats that perhaps you will allow me to tread briefly upon them. I think the tone and content of the speeches has absolutely borne out my point that it is a Committee stage proceeding that we need. I shall deal briefly with the points which have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that the amendment was addressed only to those who sought to make it a condition of employment that information should be provided, but as soon as they seek not to appoint someone because they have not provided this information they will be imposing a condition. Therefore the process would seem to me inevitably to follow. If an employer wishes to know if somebody has a criminal record, he is entitled to ask; but as soon as he asks, either the answer is no good to him, if the applicant tells him to go and get lost, or the

99
applicant is not appointed and the suspicion is that he is not appointed because he has not provided the information. I hope the noble Lord will not return to that charge. I merely wish to illustrate the difficulties that I see which could not be dealt with at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, invites me to come to a conclusion by Third Reading, which is only a few days off. I cannot undertake that, but what I can undertake is to take the various items of concern expressed by noble Lords, principally by the noble and learned Lord himself but also by those who spoke, to my honourable and right honourable friends so that they may be apprised of them before the Bill reaches another place. With that, it would be an abuse of the procedures if I were to reply to the other detailed points which were made because they can be made better in Committee elsewhere.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I appreciate that this comes to the House for the first time, but the fact is that it comes from the context that the problems we have raised have arisen in actuality in not entirely dissimilar conditions of employment. As we are creating a wholly new scene which can make its impact on employment relationships, this is a matter which ought to be clarified. I quite see the difficulty of pressing the view that there should be a decision between now and Third Reading. As the noble Lord has undertaken to draw this problem, in all its seriousness and all its actuality, to the attention of his Ministerial colleagues, this will come as a message (and I do not mention this as a threat) to my noble friends and to our honourable friends in another place, and even if nothing further can be said by the Government at Third Reading I do not promise there will not be some observations about it then. In all the circumstances, and stressing the importance of this safeguarding measure preventing abuse by the unscrupulous, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 22:
[Printed earlier: col. 24.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 with Amendment No. 4. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wants to make an observation on Amendment No. 22, and I therefore move only Amendment No. 22.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister is very courteous. I did have an opportuiity to give him very short notice of the point I am about to raise. This amendment deals with a very important matter; that is, the compensation that can be awarded to a data subject by reason of an inaccurate record. The amendment says:
"In the case of data which accurately record information received…by the data user from the data subject or a third party, subsection (1)"—
that is the one that gives the right to compensation—
"does not apply if the following requirements have been complied with."
There are certain requirements which I need not read, but they are important requirements which, upon
100
being fulfilled, deny the right of the data subject to his compensation.
The question I put to the noble Lord is this. The amendment has got no date in it by which the data user can exempt himself from this liability by complying with these requirements. For example, the inaccuracy may be there for a very substantial period of time, and the minute before the matter comes before the court for the claim to compensation information may reach both the court and the data subject that these conditions have now been complied with. In the meantime, the poor data subject has suffered all the wrong by reason of the inaccurate information being there, and only at the last minute has the matter been put right. There is nothing here about the fact that it would have to be done immediately, within a reasonable time or by a given date. My query is: when have the requirements to be complied with in order to deny the data subject the right to compensation?
I say, frankly,that this is how I read the amendment. It may be that I have missed something, and the noble Lord the Minister, with his usual graciousness, will point out the error of my ways or the omission of which I am guilty. But if it happens to be a point that has some substance I believe your Lordships would want to know about it, and that is why I have raised it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy in giving me warning. The date that he is looking for is the date in Clause 22(1)—the date on which the subject suffers damage by reason of the inaccuracy of the data. That inaccuracy must exist at the time the damage is caused, and subsection (2) cannot on any reasonable construction nullify that by allowing the user to remedy the inaccuracy after the damage has been caused and so avoid liability. So the idea of somebody coming up to him on the steps of the court and saying, "Sorry, old chap, but I put this right last night", does not arise.
However, I have had but little time to take advice. I will take further advice and will make myself 110 per cent. sure that this is the case. If it is not, I undertake to let the noble Lord know and to take the appropriate steps.
Lord Mishcon: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
[Printed earlier: col. 24.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.8 p.m.
Clause 23 [Compensation for loss or unauthorised disclosure]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27:
Page 19, line 19, after ("data") insert (", or access having been obtained to the data,").
line 23, leave out from second ("to") to second ("in") in line 24 and insert (", or access by, any person falling within a description specified pursuant to second 4(3)(d) above").
line 29, leave out ("or disclosure") and insert (", disclosure or access").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will take with Amendment No. 25 the other two amendments to Clause 23, Amendments Nos. 26 and 27. Clause 23 provides the data subject with a right to compensation if he suffers damage as a result of a data user's failure to take adequate security precautions. It thus provides a cause of action where there is damage caused by a breach of the eighth data protection principle. The failure in security may result in the loss, the unauthorised or accidental destruction or the disclosure of data without the authority of the data user; and, as cast, Clause 23 deals with these situations.
But these are all cases of deliberate disclosure. There is no provision in the clause as drafted for negligent disclosure, which may, after all, be equally improper and equally damaging to the data subject concerned. Inadequate security may lead to unauthorised persons gaining access to personal data. In some cases unauthorised disclosure will also be involved, but we have come to realise that this will not invariably be the case. A person may, for example, secretly tap in to a user system without there being any positive disclosure of data to him;or because of inadequate physical security that person may be able to gain direct access to the equipment and operate it illicitly himself. Clearly, if a data subject is harmed as a result of poor security allowing someone to gain unauthorised access to data held about him in these ways, it is right that Clause 23 should allow the subject to obtain compensation. That had always been our intention, but Clause 23 did not perhaps fully give effect to it.
These amendments, therefore, insert into Clause 23 the appropriate references to unauthorised access, thereby ensuring that there is no barrier to the subject claiming compensation in the kind of case I have described. I think this is an aim with which your Lordships will sympathise. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 25 to 27.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 24 [Rectification and erasure]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 28:
[Printed earlier: col. 24.]
The noble Lord said: This amendment is another to which I have already spoken with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare): As an amendment to this amendment we have Amendment No. 29.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am sorry my Lords, but have we passed by Clause 28? I was hoping to make a comment on it.
The Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 28 has been proposed and we now come to Amendment No. 29 as an amendment to No. 28.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I was endeavouring to speak on Amendment No. 28.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: On new Clause 28, my Lords?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on new Clause 24, as in Amendment No. 28, if the House will bear with me.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I wonder whether by any chance we are at cross-purposes. Amendment No. 28 is one to which I spoke with Amendment No. 4. The amendment to new Clause 24 is in Amendment No. 29. The noble Lord is addressing himself to the amendment we debated earlier? I see that he is.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is only a short point but I think an important one which relates to subsection (2)(a) of the new clause which your Lordships may think, and the Minister may consider on reflection, is surely far too restrictive.
Suppose a data user holds data about a data subject which have been supplied to him by a third party which the data subject contends are inaccurate or misleading. Clearly the data user cannot be expected to sit in judgment over the dispute in order to determine which of them is right. He has no incentive in a normal case; and, indeed, would not have the necessary powers to do this. However, a court is in a different position. If there is a genuinedispute about the accuracy of the information, a court of law is surely the only place where it can be conclusively resolved.
The proposed subsection (2) (a), by saying that,
"no order shall be made under subsection (1) … if the requirements mentioned in Section 22 (1A) above have been complied with"
would prevent any court from even having jurisdiction, as I understand it, to do this. The result would be that a data subject could never have incorrect or misleading data about himself put right, even if he can prove affirmatively that they are wrong. All that he can ever achieve is the addition of an indication that he disputes the accuracy of the data. It is therefore this limiting power on the court in subsection (2)(a) to which I ask the Minister to give his consideration. I hope he may be able to do it now; but, if not, at a later stage on Third Reading.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I was hoping that someone else might express a few lengthy views on the subject. It is rare that I ask others to consider. I am advised to re-advert to material which I thought I had already used. If the noble Lord finds it wanting in any respect I shall happily come back at a later stage, as he suggests.
I now recall that I have material on this. The noble Lord suggested that while the amendment goes a long way towards protecting the rights of the data subject, it does not go far enough in one respect. He argued that, while the insertion of the appropriate markers should guarantee the data user against a claim for compensation under Clause 22, there is no reason why those markers should also protect him from an order under Clause 24 if the data can be shown to be inaccurate. In other words, the data subject should have a right to have data corrected under Clause 24, irrespective of any markers.
While I can see the attraction of the argument, which I hope was the argument that the noble Lord was advancing, we must not lose sight of the twin aims of these clauses, which are to protect the data subject while at the same time allowing the minimum interference to the operations of users who have taken all reasonable precautions in relation to received data.

103
I suspect that if we are to accept the grounds put forward we might find this balance being upset. Nevertheless, I am prepared to consider the points that have been raised to see whether there is any way in which they might be accommodated. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I do not promise to have resolved all the issues before the Bill leaves this House.
How I wish I could have put my hands on that information 30 seconds earlier!
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have called Amendment No. 29. Is anyone wishing to propose it?
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 28, Amendment No. 29:
At end of subsection (1), insert—
("and may further order the data user to communicate the court's findings, in such manner as the court may approve, to persons to whom he had previously disclosed, or who had previously obtained access to, the inaccurate data or such an expression of opinion based on them.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we seemed to be trifling for a moment with disorder, but I think we are gradually getting back to anchorage. Amendment No. 29 proposes an addition to subsection (1) of new Clause 24 relating to rectification and erasure, Your Lordships will see that,
"if a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that personal data held by a data user … are inaccurate … the court may order the rectification"
and so on.
This amendment proposes that the court may make a further order to the data user requiring him,
"to communicate the court's findings, in such manner as the court may approve, to persons to whom he had previously disclosed, or who had previously obtained access to, the inaccurate data or such an expression of opinion based on them."
The difficulty is this. By the time the court has ordered rectification or erasure, the data user may have communicated the incorrect matter to other people. It seems to us that the court should at least have power to order him to tell those people he has misinformed that what he had previously told them was wrong. It may not be wholly satisfactory merely to lock the stable door, but in won cases at least he who has suffered may know where the horse has bolted and be able to retrieve it. This is a modest amendment that we propose to strengthen the value of rectification and erasure. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, building on the powers of the courts under our new Clause 24, the noble and learned Lord seeks to extend those powers in a significant new direction. In the new clause now accepted by your Lordships, the courts have the power to order the correction or erasure of inaccurate data. It is now proposed that, as well as ordering correction or erasure, they should also be able to order the user concerned to inform all persons to whom he has disclosed the inaccurate data that they are inaccurate. By virtue of our amendment to Clause 10, which keeps the registrar's power consistent with those of the court here, the registrar too would be able to serve on users an enforcement notice having the same effect.
I am sure we all see clearly the intent behind the
104
amendment. I do not take issue with it in principle. Indeed, I sympathise with it. The noble and learned Lord is on the side of the data subject. I am a data subject, as is everyone else in the House. If a data user has been spreading false information about someone, no matter how unwittingly, it is desirable that when he discovers that the information is false he should get in touch with the people he has misinformed and put them right. Where the data user supplies this information as a service to others I suppose that the credibility and therefore the viability of that service may to some extent depend on his doing so and one may reasonably hope that he will. But the amendment extends to all data users everywhere and always. Much as I sympathise with the noble and learned Lord's wish to defend the interests and indeed the reputations of data subjects, I find the consequences that would flow from it dauntingly large.
In effect, what it means is that, since nobody can be certain that all his data are accurate, everybody must assume that some of his data maybe inaccurate. If it is going to be inaccurate, he must further assume that he may be ordered by the courts to put right everybody whom he wrongly informed about the data subject should the data subject go to law. Regrettably, that means that every single disclosure will have to be logged by every user and the log kept for at least as long as he keeps the data on his tapes. Otherwise he might find himself subject to a court order with which he was incapable of complying. This would be an insurance policy but a remarkably expensive one. The cost to a large user recording each disclosure and retaining that record for as long as, and possibly longer than, the data are held would be immense in administrative and technical terms.
Admirable as the amendment may appear at first sight, and warmly as I regard its intentions. I am afraid that, for the reasons I have stated, it is not one that I can recommend to your Lordships. For every single data user it would generate a volume of logging and record keeping that would be enormous against the possibility, however unlikely, that the court would require corrections. I hope that corrections will take place but I do no think that we can afford to bring them about in this way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as we are at Report stage, would he say what the Government propose to do about this?
Lord Elton: My Lords. I am tempted to a flippant reply, but the answer is that I think we intend to leave the Bill as it is because it is the best that we can do.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I venture to think that the noble Lord has exaggerated the difficulties which exist here. I think that it is reasonable to assume— perhaps as a lawyer I have more confidence than the layman—that courts will behave reasonably in the use of these powers. What is given here is a power—it is not an absolute duty—that the court may in a given case require this to be done: namely, this is such an outrageous case with such serious consequences, that the court thinks it is proper in this case to order the data user to correct the errors for which he has been responsible. That is not an excessive power to put in the hands of the court.

105
If it would help to achieve acceptance of this amendment to insert the words, "when the court thinks it proper or reasonable so to do"—though that is slightly insulting to a court, I should have thought—but if that point of punctilio is required in the drafting, perhaps if the noble Lord would be content with that, I should be content to leave his acceptance of the amendment on that basis. But I feel that he having admitted that there is a mischief here, that ought to be dealt with in the provisions of the Bill—and it is common ground that there is such a potential mischief—perhaps pending some view from another quarter that that is a better way to deal with the matter. If the noble Lord the Minister is content with that proposal of mine, I shall wait to hear what he has to say before I leave the matter.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that the question of whether the noble and learned Lord wants to dispose of the matter now is going to rest very largely with him. I cannot encourage him to expect a beneficial result from patience. Obviously I am prepared to look at anything that he puts forward, but my immediate advice is that there will be nothing that I shall be able to say as a result of so doing. Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord wishes to try the issue now, he should do so. I am not in favour of deferring matters to Third Reading, but if he wishes me so to do I am prepared merely to say that we will look at it; but I have no reason to suppose that I shall be able to do anything other than say, no.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I shall not push the matter at this point, but if the noble Lord will look at it, as he has undertaken, I accept that. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Crime, taxation and immigration]:
9.22 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
Page 21, line 24, at end insert ("or")
line 25, leave out from ("duty") to end of line 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 31 as well as Amendment No. 30. There are certain occasions when a Minister can rise to his feet to move an amendment almost wholly confident that noble Lords opposite will welcome the amendment. I think that this is one such occasion. Amendment No. 30, along with No. 31, which goes with it, removes "the control of immigration" from the list of purposes in Clause 28(1) for which data may be held and so qualify for exemption from those particular provisions of the Bill to which Clause 28 applies. I ought perhaps to mention that in the Bill as printed the line numbering has gone astray. Line 25, to which the first amendment relates, is in fact that containing paragraph (b), and not paragraph (c), as would appear to be the case by looking at the printed numbering.
The effect of the amendments, therefore, is that data held for the control of immigration will be in a position no different from that of all other "ordinary"
106
data. If they are also held for one of the purposes that remain in Clause 28(1)—the prevention of crime, for example—they may of course benefit from that exemption, but, if not, they will be subject to the full rigours of the Bill, in the same way as, say, data held for the purposes of personnel management.
It is tempting to say nothing more, and to stop there and sit down. But I believe that I should say more to explain the reasons why the Government have accepted that the immigration exemption should be removed from the Bill. First, I want to emphasise one thing. From the outset the exemption has been enveloped in a fog of misunderstanding, unfounded accusation and unnecessary fears. For instance, it was not racially discriminatory. It applied equally to all people, irrespective of racial origin, where the granting of subject access, for example, would have prejudiced immigration control. Nor was it at odds with the Council of Europe Convention. That allows exemptions where necessary in the interests of protecting the rights and freedoms of others. And we believe that all persons settled in this country have a right to expect immigration control to be exercised and to be effective.
But what we could not ignore were the fears that have been engendered by the perception that now exist about the exemption, however misplaced they may be. However unnecessary those fears might be, they were genuine and were strongly felt, particularly among members of the ethnic communities. We were advised from a number of quarters—not all of whom necessarily objected to the exemption on its merits—that it was important to allay those fears before they spilled over into the field of race relations. It was for this reason above all else that, as I promised in the course of our Committee stage debate, we reviewed the importance of the exemption for immigration control.
During the course of both this Bill and its predecessor I have made clear more than once that the amount of data that would actually have benefited from the exemption was very small. The bulk of data would not have been affected at all, since there would have been no prejudice to the control of immigration from exposing the data to the full provisions of the Bill. At the other end of the spectrum, certain immigration data are held for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and can, where necessary, seek exemption on that basis. Only in the middle is there a small category for which we originally sought some special protection. But we have concluded that the benefits of that protection are outweighed by the suspicions that might be aroused about our information-handling practices for immigration control if we allowed the accusations to grow up—however unfounded—that we were intent on casting a cloak of secrecy across all personal data used in the immigration context.
So, my Lords, we have concluded that the exemption should be removed from the Bill. On occasions, subject access may now have to be given to those who seek it in order to avoid controls. But such people will be few in number and access to their data will be of limited assistance in achieving their objectives. Also, all disclosures of data, unless of

107
course made for crime prevention purposes, will have to be registered in advance. But, again,we never envisaged resorting to that exemption frequently for immigration purposes, since all the principal, regular transfers of information would be previously registered regardless of the existence of the immigration exemption, and there will be no need for any changes in procedures there. In sum, therefore, the importance of avoiding both prejudice to race relations and fears of secret information-handling procedures persuaded us that the exemption should go. In that spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, while we, on this side of the House, both on my right and behind me, naturally rejoice in the belated decision of the Government to remove what has been a blot on the Bill all the way through, we regret the lack of awareness and the element once again of insensitivity — —
Lord Denham: That is a little ungracious.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am not being ungracious. I am replying to a speech that has used phrases like "fogs of misunderstanding" apparently being deliberately, or perhaps not quite deliberately, created. If the Chief Whip wishes to intervene, he can get on his feet. It is because of this attitude, which has surprisingly come from the Minister, who has been very helpful throughout the Bill, that I feel entitled to respond in the way that I have done. It is a pity that he thought it right to deal with it in the way that he did.
At any rate, however, let us look to the future rather than to the past and accept the withdrawal of this provision from the Bill. It worked in this way. Who were the people likely to be most affected by the special provision relating to the control of immigration? They were the immigrants themselves, the ethnic minority. They were the potential source of any problems or any unfairness that might have arisen if this provision had remained in the Bill. There was no mystery about the fact that they should have felt endangered and exposed. However, I go along with the Chief Whip so far as to say that I am very willing, at this point, to welcome the decision of the Government.
During discussion, I remember suggesting that we were running our heads against a brick wall and that the noble Lord the Minister was apparently carrying round his own brick wall for the purpose. Well, the wall of Jericho has tumbled. We are glad of it. We welcome the belated decision of the Government. I am happy to leave the matter on that note, and no other.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Minister's concession on this clause. I should not have felt it necessary to say more had it not been for the provocative tone of the Minister in moving this pair of amendments. The Minister has really invited us to say something about the manner in which the debate was conducted by, the phraseology that he used, and particularly the term "fog of misunderstanding", which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has already quoted. I do not know whether the Minister was intending that the epithet should be
108
applied to the manner in which discussion has been carried on in your Lordships' House. If so, it was very unfair. No suggestions have been made in this House which have been refuted by the Minister: and in particular, if I may say so, what he has said about the Council of Europe Convention and the meaning of Article 9 has never been satisfactorily answered.
We tried to suggest—and I shall not rehearse all the arguments again but I shall just mention the point very briefly—that the reference in that article to the rights and freedoms of others was meant to be a reference to individual rights and freedoms as, for example, in the European Convention on Human Rights. It was not a reference to collective rights such as the Minister tried to imply when he talked about the infringement of the rights and freedoms of others that was likely to result from the presence in this country of one illegal entrant who would be undetected as a result of deleting the immigration control from Clause 28.
So we still think that the convention would be shown to have been breached if the Minister had left the Bill unchanged and we think it was very wise for him to do so from that point of view. We still think also that, as originally couched, the Bill would have been racially prejudiced indirectly, in the sense that the people who would be liable to be caught under Clause 28 would have been predominantly black. No one can doubt, for example, if we look at Clause 28(2) where we see the exemption from non-disclosure provisions, that the transfer of information from other computer systems to those under the control of the Home Office immigration system, would have primarily concerned black people and that when they trawled hospitals, health authorities, local authorities, and so on, to find data in relation to people suspected of having flouted the immigration system or having been concerned in some way with violations of immigration control, the individuals whose data would have been transferred would have been predominantly black.
That was a legitimate reason for the fears that the ethnic minorities felt about the way in which the provisions would have been carried out. From that point of view the Minister has been very sensible to withdraw the provision. We were not talking about a small category for which special protection was needed, when we consider that 300,000 names are already included on the Harmondsworth computer. Therefore, we have achieved on this side a small victory, one which will be enormously welcomed by the ethnic minorities throughout this country. The Minister could have avoided the type of anxieties of which he has spoken if he had listened to us a little earlier on and had not insisted on taking these proposals to the very brink, as he did.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not here earlier to hear the Minister and therefore I will not delay the House very long. I shall merely say that there is always joy in Heaven for a sinner that repenteth.
Lord Elton: My Lords, that was a welcome observation from the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, which has given me more comfort than anything else that I have heard in the debate. I came to this House four times on the last piece of legislation and three times on this one,

109
on, in my view, the perfectly valid precept that the legislation we had in hand as it was drafted was not racist but was effective. If there was a misunderstanding—and I am convinced that there was—I failed to dispel it. The fault was mine. I do not accuse noble Lords opposite of obfuscating or being in any way contrary. I merely say that I remain convinced that we were within the Council of Europe definitions and that we were within strict fairness between the different races in this country, all of whom may cultivate aliases for suspect reasons, all of whom may run illicit immigration rackets, and so on.
I was anxious to tell your Lordships that in spite of all this, and in spite of the fact that we feel that this is a piece of legislation that would assist in running this country, we believed that the demands of good race relations were more important. I felt that that was something as regards which I would have the
110
sympathy of noble Lords opposite, and that merely rehearsing the reasons why I had been reluctant to agree with them would not Lords opposite, and that merely rehearsing the reasons why I had been reluctant to agree with them would not have precipitated the type of response that we had. I know that in their heart of hearts they are glad that we did this. I would merely say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that I do not represent the walls of Jericho; I represent a door which, if sufficiently heavily and frequently knocked on, sometimes opens to answer to reason. I am glad that your Lordships accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I was not questioning the personal uprightness of the noble Lord, and I am content to leave the matter on the oratorical Mosaic note struck by my noble friend Lord Pitt from the Back- Benches.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 21, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (2A), (2B) and (2C) below,")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a very important amendment and it is unfortunate that we come to it at such a late stage in our deliberations. It relates to Clause 28(2) of the Bill, which has evoked almost as much controversy as Clause 28(1). Indeed, in a submission to the Home Office, the Lindop Committee called it a "palpable fraud on the public", which is pretty strong language. Its effect is that the data protection register, so far from encouraging public confidence in computerised information systems, will, we fear, in fact, diminish it, since the very disclosures which the public most fear—thatis to say, disclosures of personal information to agencies inherently hostile to the data subject—can lawfully take place without the public being warned prospectively by an entry in the register that they can take place or any retrospective public accountability after they have taken place.
It has been the argument of the Home Office that the public will know about these things because they will have read Section 28(2) of the Data Protection Act, but we do not find that a satisfactory position and in our view the subsection would disfigure the statute book. Few would know it was there. If they did know, they would have no confidence in the register and they would never know the extent of the secret data traffic about what might be highly sensitive and confidential information.
In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave an example of why, in the Government's view, Clause 28(2) was needed. He suggested as an example that the police might need to know whether a person—John Smith—had been at his workplace at a particular time on a particular day in order to eliminate him from their inquiries into a serious crime which had been committed at that time. Attendance records for the workplace are held on computer. Unless the employer had anticipated the contingency or had filled in his application form for entry on the register, it would be a criminal offence for him to tell the police whether, according to his record, John Smith is shown as having clocked in before and not clocked out until after the relevant time on that day.
That, of course, was persuasive as an example of one state of affairs. Clearly, the employer must be able to give that information even if he has said nothing about such disclosures on the register. But the point of our amendment is that, in the circumstances of that hypothetical case, the information was not communicated in confidence in the first place, and disclosing it to the police will therefore not involve any breach of an obligation of confidentiality which the employer owes to John Smith.
The matter is very different in the field with which we are concerned in this amendment—namely, confidential information—and especially (and this is the matter which has given rise to most concern) for health records. It is a fundamental rule of all health care that confidential information obtained by health professionals will not be used for any purpose other than the continuing care of the patient or client
112
concerned, save in quite exceptional cases such as the prevention or detection of serious crime if that cannot be done without such disclosure. The scope of those exceptions will always be known in advance. Health authorities and health professionals already have policies about such disclosures and will continue to have them after the Bill has been enacted.
Accordingly, what this amendment seeks to achieve is to except confidential information from the general exemption which is now found in Clause 28(2). Its effect would be that the disclosure of confidential personal data to law enforcement agencies would have to be prospectively notified on the register so that the public would know in advance in what circumstances such disclosures would be made. The wording included in the amendment defining confidential information is taken from the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in the form in which it was last before Parliament.
I should like to add that the amendment has the support of all the health professions—doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, health visitors, psychologists—the professions supplementary to medicine, social workers, et cetera, represented on the inter-professional working group chaired by Sir Douglas Black, which has been convened on the initiative of the DHSS in order to establish common policies among all health professions about this. I received from him yesterday a letter recalling that he had written to me previously about this matter, and stating that if the amendments which I now move were passed they would meet his group's concern, and that they therefore fully support them. That is support indeed from a highly responsible and, your Lordships may think, reliable source and we feel it is right to set those fears aside. I therefore beg to move this amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the amendments before the House bring together two strands of our previous deliberations on Clause 28(2)—that is, restricting the application of the exemptions, and requiring certain disclosures to be notified to the registrar. As the noble and learned Lord explained, Clause 28(2) exempts personal data from the non-disclosure provisions in any case where the data are disclosed for one of the Clause 28(1) purposes—that is the prevention or detection of crime; the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or the assessment or collection of any tax or duty—where the application of the non-disclosure provisions would prejudice any of those matters. It no longer exempts them where they would prejudice the control of immigration.
Broadly speaking, Clause 28(2) disapplies the new prohibitions on disclosure created by the Bill in specified circumstances, allowing a user to disclose personal data to the police and revenue authorities, even though they are not registered as recipients of his data, without committing a criminal offence under Clause 5 or contravening the data protection principles. Clause 28(2) has been the subject of much misunderstanding, if I may say so without annoying your Lordships. But I would hope that, with the help of the noble Lords who have shown such an interest in this clause, most of the misconceptions have now been laid to rest. At the risk of repeating myself too often, let me emphasise yet again that the clause contains no

113
new powers to require the disclosure of information; it does not in any way release a holder of personal data from any legal or other obligation of confidence; and it does not attempt to deceive a person consulting the register of data users established under the Bill, because the legislation itself makes clear that there are certain exceptions to the rules governing registration and that the register is not therefore absolutely comprehensive.
Thus we are left with the real difference of view between the Government and the noble Lords opposite on Clause 28(2). The Government believe that in certain circumstances it is essential to disapply the new prohibitions on disclosure in the Bill—thus doing nothing more than retaining the status quo—in order to ensure that the important work of the police and other law enforcement bodies is not prejudiced. The noble Lords opposite apparently take the view that it is not necessary to make special provision, because police and revenue work must take second place to confidentiality. The amendments to Clause 28 would introduce three new subsections. The first, subsection (2A), would provide that the exemptions from the non-disclosure provisions in Clause 28(2) will not apply to certain "confidential" categories of data. This would mean that in the case of such data no disclosures could be made for crime prevention or crime detection purposes in any circumstances unless the police were first registered as recipients. If a user held information of value to the police in a particular investigation but had not registered them as recipients of the data, he would be unable to disclose the data. And this would be the case irrespective of the seriousness of the incident being investigated, the clear public interest in disclosure, the urgency of the matter or the willingness of the data user to co-operate. That is something new in the law. It is a brand new statutory gag on willing key witnesses ready to help the police to protect society from the criminal.
The definition of the confidential categories of data has I think been drawn from Clause 10 of last Session's Police and Criminal Evidence Bill; and like so many grafts from one piece of legislation to another, the graft does not take very well. I appreciate that the noble Lords were trying to be helpful by limiting the application of Clause 28(2) rather than deleting it as they had proposed before; but the category of "confidential" data is really very wide. Thus for example it would include all personal data held by the Government because it is covered by the Official Secrets Act.
The amendment ignores the fact that although there may be restrictions on the disclosure of particular information in certain circumstances, disclosures may he allowed to the police in other cases. This is the case I think with the doctor's obligation of confidence. The profession recognises that it may be overridden in very exceptional cases where the public interest in for example solving a serious crime requires. Yet under the amendment no allowance is made for that. Disclosures would not be permitted even in those special circumstances where it is acknowledged that the normal restrictions should be overridden. The brand new legislative gag would be applied willy nilly. Given these considerations I cannot think it right to deprive the police and the communities which they protect of
114
the benefits of Clause 28(2) in relation to the wide category of information set out in the amendments.
That was enough to quench my enthusiasm for the amendments, but there was more to come. The second effect of the amendments would be to require, under new subsections (2B) and (2C), that all disclosures of "confidential" data for Clause 28(1) purposes must be notified to the registrar even though all such disclosures will have to be registered. This notion of notification is very different from the one previously proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury, Lord Wigoder and Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, which would be related to unregistered disclosures. Subsections (2B) and (2C) would imposean additional requirement to notify certain disclosures to the registrar, even though the disclosures were registered. I really do not see the need for singling out disclosures for these purposes in this way. Perhaps the least attractive aspect of these new subsections is the fact that they are limited to disclosures for the Clause 28(1) purposes. The imposition of particular disincentives to disclosure simply because they were for such laudable purposes as the prevention of crime can scarcely be an approach which would be welcomed in this House or elsewhere in the country.
Finally, the proposed amendment to Clause 34 would require the registrar to publish these notifications—though not in a way, I would suggest, that will he particularly helpful or informative. Indeed there would be a constant danger that without a great deal of explanation and commentary, his publication of them could arouse more fears and misunderstandings than it allayed, by giving a misleading view of what had been going on quite out of context.
On the question of the medical professions, both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security and their respective Secretaries of State are anxious to allay fears which we do not think are well founded that the Bill might alter the position concerning the role of doctors and other health professionals in determining the use of medical records.
I want to emphasise that it is not the wish of the Government to use this Bill to the detriment of the professionals in that respect. Our wish is to maintain the present position whereby the professionals, when asked by the police for information, continue as at present to be free to respond as they think fit and with all due regard to the ethical constraints upon him.
We are a law-making Chamber. We make laws in order to protect our fellow citizens from crime and to see that they are not swindled out of the proper financial support of corporate and private taxpayers. We make the laws. These amendments will make it a great deal harder for the agencies who enforce them to do their job. In the process innocent victims will go needlessly unavenged and society at large will be less effectively protected. I know that is not what noble Lords opposite want to bring about. They have an innocent and honourable purpose; but I regret to say that that would be the consequence if they were to pursue it further down this road and I must ask your Lordships to resist it.
9.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fear that the Minister or his advisers have been carried away somewhat in the strength of his reaction to what is essentially a very moderate series of amendments. It would have been possible to have started from a much more radical viewpoint. I will not conceal from your Lordshipsthat I feel that the power of data processing applied to police activities and applied to Revenue activities, unless it is checked, can lead to as grave an injustice, and sometimes a graver injustice, than that which it seeks to remedy. It is not so much the reporting of criminal offences as the ability of instant access to computers for non-criminal activities to be used—particularly against young people. Anybody who has teenage children, or perhaps children slightly older, will know from them how often young people, and particularly young blacks, are stopped by the police and an instant interrogation is made of the police computer as to whether anything is known about them. That is bad enough, but we know that the very fact of their being stopped is itself being recorded in the police computer, and they have a record thereafter.
This amendment does not say anything like that. This amendment does not seek, as some of us might wish to seek, to restrict further the exemptions. It does not seek even to stop communications of data from other sources. It certainly has no effect on the ability of the police computers themselves to collect and transmit information within and between police forces. What it says (and this is why I describe it as moderate) is that when information has been acquired for some other purpose—the purpose of a trade or profession, as my noble and learned friend has said—and only when that information has been acquired under conditions of explicit or implied confidentiality, then the fact it has been transferred should be notified to the data subject. One cannot be milder than that in protecting data subjects. One could go a great deal further. I suggest to the Government that they are grossly over-reacting to something which is not just an innocent, honourable purpose, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said, but is the minimum requirement for the protection of individual liberties.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I must express a small doubt about this. I have been concerned in my professional career with problems in Northern Ireland and police and terrorists. There is not the slightest doubt that the difficulty of getting information which leads to an arrest involves all sorts of rather disagreeable methods from which we, the citizens, benefit. Occasionally these methods are exposed and the police get into trouble. I am unhappy about any amendment which is going to make the position of the police in getting information about serious crime more difficult than it now is. It seems to me that this amendment does that, and I therefore express a doubt at this moment. I could be convinced otherwise, but I express a doubt.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe there may be quite a lot of misunderstanding about this amendment. Let me make it perfectly clear that noble Lords on the Benches which I have the privilege to
116
occupy—and I am sure that this applies to the Liberal Benches and the SDP Benches, especially when the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, expresses a doubt—want to assist the police and all authorities who are in charge of law and order within the limits that have to be set in order to safeguard the professions and the ordinary citizens.
We always have problems of this kind. There have been problems of this kind, if I may say so—and I hope I am not taking the matter out of context—in the recent Waldorf case. Many of us are extremely worried, wanting to assist the police in all the dangerous work they do but nevertheless feeling that we have to have some limitations if the liberty of the subject is to be properly guaranteed as well as having the other guarantee that we want, which is not to shackle the hands and limbs of the police who do such a dangerous job so often in difficult circumstances. That is the dilemma.
It may very well be that this particular amendment holds the kernel of a profound truth. For the very first time, in this Bill we are saying what people can do who have confidential information about citizens in this country and we have had debates on confidentiality, privacy and so on arising out of the Younger Committee and other committees. The doctors are worried. There is no point in the Minister pushing that to one side with very gracious and carefully chosen language. The doctors are worried, and they are worried about a patient who goes along to them and tells them something about an illness. You can go along to a solicitor because that is covered by privilege, and you can disclose to him that you sustained a certain injury in a certain way, and nothing in the world can make the solicitor divulge that information—but when we get to the doctor and he is told something by a patient and that goes on to some computer somewhere, perhaps because of a social services inquiry which has nothing to do with the commission of a crime, suddenly the doctor is called upon to disclose this information because it is said to him: "You are entitled to do so under this Bill".
These are the considerations that worried my noble and learned friend and they worried the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, if I may say so. They leave us in some doubt as to whether this situation is properly covered. If this amendment does not commend itself to the Government, I hope at least that the noble Lord the Minister may be able to say—and this may possibly stop our having to express a very definite view, though that decision is happily not in my hands—that he recognises that there is, as was explained by my noble and learned friend, such a body of opinion here, among doctors especially, that causes everyone anxiety. I hope he will say that it causes him anxiety and that the views expressed today and the views of the doctors also will be taken properly into account so that something may be done in order to reach this proper frontier which is so difficult—I refer to the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the doctor-patient relationship on one side and the needs of law and order on the other.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it seems to me that the advent of computers is forcing us to consider a subject which has been dealt with in an entirely ad hoc way in

117
the past. What the noble Lord the Minister's speech may be summed up as presenting to the House is the proposition that although information has been held in confidence by many and varied organisations in the past, those persons or bodies responsible for the data have always felt themselves at liberty to divulge the information to the police where very serious questions of public policy are concerned. All we are saying on this side of the House is that if it is the intention of those organisations to continue behaving in this way they must bring some order into the process by announcing at the very beginning when they register under Clause 4 that they intend to give the information in this manner to the police and in what circumstances they would do so.
If it is to be serious crimes, what kind of serious crimes are we talking about? Are we talking, as in the case of the Inland Revenue, about murder, treason and arson in Her Majesty's dockyards, which are the only circumstances in which Inspectors of Taxes and others in the Inland Revenue will disclose information to the police, as was mentioned on a previous occasion? The Inland Revenue have a clearly defined policy, which is there for everybody to know and discover, and that is something which they feel is absolutely necessary so that taxpayers who give information freely to inspectors will feel an absolute confidence that the information which they voluntarily disclose about themselves to these officers will not be used for any other purpose.
All we are saying is that people who give confidential information to doctors—which was the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—to health service professionals or indeed to any other holder of personal information, such as a local authority, should be entitled to know in what circumstances they would give that information to the police, or indeed if they intend to do so as a matter of principle, anyway. They should be entitled to know that that data user is required from the outset to state formally that it is his policy, in certain limited circumstances, to breach the obligation of confidentiality which he would otherwise have to the people whose data he uses or holds.
Secondly, he has to address himself on this point to the circumstances in which that disclosure would be made. In other words, he has to formalise the process which the noble Lord the Minister has described as going on throughout the whole country when data users holding confidential information are approached by the law enforcement agencies now. This is already happening. They know what their rules are, so they would have no difficulty in putting them down on paper when they come to register. But I accept that perhaps the formulation in the amendment is not as precise or limited as we could have hoped.
I fully understand the doubts which my noble friend Lord Donaldson has expressed on it. Nevertheless, I feel that before the Bill leaves your Lordships—obviously, it cannot be done this evening and perhaps we could do it on Third Reading—we should attempt in some way to define limits on Clause 28(2) that will give confidence to members of the public who are divulging this personal information to all kinds of agencies that it will not be wilfully and freely disclosed to limited enforcement agencies on
118
trivial grounds. That is what members of the public have a fear of; that it is not questions of murder, treason or terrorism which would invoke the disclosure provisions of Clause 28(2), but comparatively minor offences, such as theft or driving without a licence.
They fear that on these grounds many professionals may feel themselves under some pressure from the police, who will point to Clause 28(2) and say, "There you are. Parliament has decreed that you are relieved of the obligation of confidentiality which all other data users have towards the holders of personal data, and therefore you are empowered—we will not say 'obliged'—by Parliament to give us that information". So they would feel compelled by some moral pressure to release information to the law enforcement agencies, and even if they did not do so on a wide scale nevertheless the fear would always be there among members of the public.
So it is a matter of confidence. The noble Lord has already given us a substantial amount because he said that the confidence of ethnic minorities would be undermined in relation to the immigration control provisions in Clause 28. I would respectfully urge him to give equally careful consideration to this very much wider aspect of Clause 28.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have only one shot in my locker. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to intervene it would perhaps be better if he did so now.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Most certainly, my Lords. The ambit of this amendment is limited. What it seeks to achieve is to except confidential information from the general exemption which Clause I gives about the right of access provisions in regard to personal data in the fields that are indicated. Its effect would be that the disclosure of confidential personal data to law enforcement agencies would have to be notified prospectively on the register so that the public would know in advance in what circumstances those disclosures would be made. The anxiety which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned is that the public would not know that and would fear that this right to disclose even matters they give in the most confidential circumstances may yet, in circumstances remote from the commission of serious crime, be communicated to the authorities without their knowledge and without their being informed.
The fact that this matter has raised concern to the extent I have indicated in the most responsible branches of the medical profession shows that we are up against a very serious problem. I say that with great respect to the Minister whose integrity and wish to help I have never challenged in the course of our long debates. If I said something earlier which, according to the Chief Whip, may have questioned that approach to him I certainly did not intend to communicate it. But this is a matter of great concern to the public. I said earlier that even stronger words than I have used were used by the members of the Lindop Committee, which called what is proposed a palpable fraud on the public, in that something was going on which they would not know about and which they would be unaware of, and that all this protection of the privacy of the subject was a gigantic bluff. These are the fears which have been created and which now exist.

119
The doubts which exist are there and the fears exist that if nothing is done to repair the uncertainty, if these powers remain unchallenged as they stand, the public will suffer. Public anxiety would increase about the way the criminal system was being administered. Any lack of confidence in the set-up would be damaging to the enforcement of the law. It may well be that better words can be devised to protect the exploitation of what is proposed by the criminal. I do not myself at the moment see it, but if anything of that kind is brought forward it can be done. However, I should have thought that in the circumstances with which we are faced in the Bill as it now stands it is proper that the House should have an opportunity to express a view as to whether the seriousness of the risks involved and whether the fears of the medical profession are such —
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understood that the noble and learned Lord was inviting me to respond. I hope I have not misled him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I paused at this point merely to emphasise the fact that this is not a perverse view of those with no sense of public responsibility. On the contrary, we feel this very deeply. We feel it is our duty to the public, as Members of the House, to see that the matter is put in a way which will not endanger or worry them unduly.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we share a common purpose and a common duty to the public good, and I am very grateful for the courteous and friendly way in which the noble and learned Lord concluded the argument on his side of the House. With the leave of the House, I should like to take up a number of the points which have been made, and I think it proper that I should do so. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, quite rightly, that we are engaged in drawing parameters within which and up to the borders of which it is proper for the police to operate in order to protect us.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out that we are now seeking to legislate on areas of conduct which hitherto have not come before Parliament for legislation. That makes me reflect that when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says that somebody one day will go to a professional and say, "Will you make this disclosure? You are entitled to under this law", he could well say that at present that same person is entitled to do so under common law and also indeed is entitled not to do so under the common law. Nobody is proposing by legislation to say that under certain circumstances under this Bill people shall be required to reveal things to the police. When the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others used the phrase, "This Bill empowers people to give information to the police", I have to repeat that it does no such thing. What it may do is refrain from preventing people from giving to the police information that they are able to give at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has argued that the areas of information concerned are small, but I suspect that they are really quite large; it is a wide definition, and some of the information could be of critical value to police involved in solving crimes of the sort which
120
almost daily, regrettably, reach the tabloid papers. I do not believe that it is right to circumscribe access to information which may result in avenging the innocent or, more important, protecting the innocent from injury and possibly death. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, therefore uttered a wise word of caution.
Nor can I accept that the Lindop Committee's description of a palpable fraud on the public is really applicable to the clause as it now stands, because there is no question of introducing a new power of revelation; it is an old power which people are free to exercise or to refrain from exercising exactly as they now are under the same pressures from professional convention, or from the oaths they take as students or on entering the professions. I do not think it is reasonable to extend it to anything uttered in specific or assumed confidence to somebody in the pursuit of their profession. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, can think of illustrations where he has said things to me and I have said things to him under professional implied and indeed explicit confidence. If that was to be material evidence in discovering why my body was found floating face down in the Thames tomorrow morning, my goodness, I hope he would give that evidence to the police. Under this Bill he would not be free to do so out of mere self-interest as well as public interest. I do ask your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we have canvassed the ground very thoroughly. I do not pretend that this is an open and shut issue, but I think the issue has been indicated sufficiently for the House to be able to take a view. Therefore, I move the amendment.
10. 11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 43.

DIVISION NO 3

CONTENTS

Airedale. L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bishopston, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

[Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Shackleton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Tordoff, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Crathome, L.

Avon, E.

Croft, L.

Beloff, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Boardman, L.

Digby, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Drumalbyn. L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Caithness, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Coleraine, L.

Gisborough, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Glanusk, L.

121

Glenarthur, L.

Mottistone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Portland, D.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kemsley, V.

Romney, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vaizey, L.

Marley, L.

Wise, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 37 not moved.]
10.20 p.m.
Clause 31 [Payrolls and accounts]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 22, line 41, leave from ("or) to second ("or") in line 2 on page 23 and insert ("paying remuneration or pensions in respect of service in any employment or office or of calculating amounts payable by way of such remuneration or pensions;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the definition in Clause 31(1)(a) is adequate to cover all types of data properly used for what we would broadly describe as payroll purposes. As noble Lords will recall, Clause 31 exempts data held for payroll and accounting purposes from the provisions of the Bill and in our anxiety to ensure that the definitions of such data are not so wide as to allow data held for other purposes to benefit from the exemption it appears that we may inadvertently have drawn the definition of payroll data a little too narrowly.
As the Bill is cast it appears that data, such as addresses or bank account numbers, which are necessary for actually paying rather than for calculating wages, and so on, may not be included in the definition of data held for payroll purposes. Clearly such data are payroll data in the sense in which we all understand that term and this amendment is therefore designed to ensure that they are covered by the exemption in Clause 31, provided of course that all the other requirements of that clause are also met. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton moved amendment No. 39:
[Printed earlier: Col. 23.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Domestic or other limited purposes]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 23, line 35, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (3A)")
Page 24, line 5, at end insert—
("(3A) It shall be a condition of the exemption of any data under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above that the data are not used for any purpose other than that for which they are held and of the exemption of any data under either paragraph of' that subsection that the data are not disclosed except as permitted by subsection (3B) below.
122
(3B) Data to which subsection (3A) above applies may be disclosed—

(a) if the data subject (or a person acting on his behalf) has requested or consented to the disclosure of the data either generally or in the circumstances in which the disclosure in question is made; or

(b) in any case in which disclosure would be permitted by any other provision of this Part of this Act if subsection (3A) above were included among the non-disclosure provisions.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, Clause 32(2) exempts from the provisions of Part II of the Bill and Clauses 21 to 24 personal data held by an unincorporated members club and certain data held only for mailing purposes. Noble Lords will also recall that during Committee stage the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, moved an amendment designed to make it a condition of the exemptions under Clause 32(2) that the data are not disclosed. I said in reply that I thought that the need to obtain the subject's consent to holding the data provided an adequate safeguard and that to prohibit all disclosures might go so far as to deter users from claiming the exemption at all. Nevertheless, I undertook to have another look at the issue raised by the noble Lord, who kindly agreed to withdraw the amendment at that stage.
The amendments before the House today represent the fruit of the Government's re-examination of the issues. We have concluded that there is a case for limiting disclosures of data covered by the exemptions, but, as noble Lords will see, we have felt it necessary to provide for certain exceptions where disclosure is permitted.These permitted disclosures arc the same as those in Clause 31(4) and (5), which deal with the disclosure of payroll and accounting data exempt under Clause 31. Therefore, amended, the clause will provide that it is a condition of the exemption of any data under Clause 32(2) that the data are not disclosed, except as permitted in the new subsection (3B). This allows the data to be disclosed, first, if the subject, or someone acting on his behalf, has, in general terms, requested or consented to the disclosure of the data; and, secondly, in any case in which the disclosure would he permitted by one of the exemptions from the non-disclosure provisions, such as that in Clause 33(4), which permits disclosures which are required by law. That is entirely consistent with Clause 31.
I ought also to mention that the amendments will make it a condition of the exemption of data held for mailing purposes under Clause 32 (2) that the data are not used for any other purpose. This is necessary because of the distinction between holding and using, as explained by my noble friend Lord Elton in relation to an earlier Government amendment, No. 3. In conclusion, I would hope that these amendments will meet the concern voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the gracious way in which she referred to my contribution to the debate on the amendment in Committee. I am equally grateful for the consideration which has been given to the principles that we then tried to advance, and personally I feel that these amendments cover the points that were then made. I repeat my gratitude.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 42:
[Printed earlier: Col. 23.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [General duties of Registrar]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Commencement and transitional provisions]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
[Printed earlier: Col. 25.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move, and I thank your Lordships for bringing us to a happy conclusion this evening.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lloyds Bowmaker Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL: DEER WORKING GROUP
  FARM ANIMAL WELFARE COUNCIL: DEER WORKING GROUP
  VENISON: IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND
  VENISON: IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND
  DEER: TRANSPORT AND SLAUGHTER
  DEER: TRANSPORT AND SLAUGHTER
  CONSTRUCTION PLANT DIRECTIVES ON NOISE LEVELS
  CONSTRUCTION PLANT DIRECTIVES ON NOISE LEVELS
  "HOME DEFENCE AND THE FARMER": PUBLICATION STATISTICS
  "HOME DEFENCE AND THE FARMER": PUBLICATION STATISTICS
  COAL-FIRING SCHEME
  COAL-FIRING SCHEME
  SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST ON FORESTRY COMMISSION LAND
  SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST ON FORESTRY COMMISSION LAND
  DEER LEGISLATION: INTERPRETATION
  DEER LEGISLATION: INTERPRETATION
  THE OFFICIAL REPORT: PRICE
  THE OFFICIAL REPORT: PRICE