Sitting of 27 April 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CROSSRAIL BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Committee on the Crossrail Bill have leave to visit and inspect the site of the proposed works and areas affected by the proposed works, provided that no evidence shall be taken in the course of such visit and that any party who has made an appearance before the Committee be permitted to attend by his Counsel, Agent or other representative.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Pan Am Flight 103
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the extradition of those persons alleged to have committed the murders of the passengers and crew of Pan Am flight 103 and residents of Lockerbie in December 1988; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I have received no recent representations concerning the extradition of the two accused, who are Libyan nationals; neither has my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. It is now well over two years since warrants were issued for the arrest of the two accused. We have given comprehensive assurances about the fairness of a trial in Scotland and the pre-trial conditions for the accused. The Libyan Government should comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and hand the two accused over for trial without further delay.
    Dr. Godman: Many people believe that the men who committed those murders over and in Lockerbie will never be brought to trial anywhere. Is it true that the Lord Advocate and the Government now have evidence concerning Syrian and Iranian involvement in this terrible affair? If so, surely sanctions against Libya have reached the end of the road. Why is the Lord Advocate so hostile to the concept of the creation of an ad hoc international tribunal presided over by a senior Scots judge, to judge the persons accused of this terrible crime?
    Mr. Lang: The accused can be assured of an absolutely fair trial in Scotland. There is no indication that any alternative arrangement would be any more acceptable to the Libyan Government than what is currently proposed. As for evidence involving other countries or other accused,
    226
    I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has not seen any evidence that would cause him not to proceed with the criminal charges that have already been brought.

    Homelessness, Glasgow
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to meet Glasgow city housing department to discuss the resources available to tackle homelessness.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I visit Glasgow and the west central belt regularly on housing matters. Glasgow district council has received a total gross housing capital allocation of over £121 million in 1994–95. That is a significant increase on last year, and will enable it to continue to tackle homelessness as a priority issue, as I have requested.
    Mr. Watson: Apart from the last phrase, the Minister's answer made no mention of homelessness. That is part of the problem. Last year, 15,000 people presented themselves to Glasgow city council's housing department as homeless; more than 2,000 of them were 16 to 17-year-olds, who do not even have the right to claim any benefits.
    Glasgow city council has made it clear in a number of submissions to the Minister that it believes it needs much more in terms of borrowing facilities to enable it to deal with the problem properly. Given that a number of those homeless people have such status largely as a result of the Government's policies—directly or indirectly—when will the Minister face up to his responsibilities on behalf of the homeless not only of Glasgow but of Scotland as a whole?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All local authorities, including Glasgow, have been asked to give very high priority to dealing with homelessness. That is one of the strategic issues with which it is asked to deal, along with stock that is below the tolerable standard, dampness and care in the community.
    This year, Glasgow's resources will total more than £120 million in both housing revenue and non-housing revenue accounts. Scottish Homes is also being asked to give top priority to homelessness, and will be active throughout the housing associations in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Top priority must continue to be given to this pressing subject.
    Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend referred to the importance of the housing associations in the battle against homelessness. Will he confirm that some £1 billion has been spent through the housing associations recently, creating some 50,000 units through building and renovation? Will he also confirm that the greatest proportion has indeed been spent in Glasgow?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend has made a good point. About £500,000 has been spent on housing associations in Glasgow—which, at one stage, was nearly half the total expenditure on housing associations. They are now relevant to Scotland as a whole, and we are tackling deprivation everywhere. I believe that the washing involved helped to make Glasgow a great deal

    227
    cleaner, and many more units were provided for homeless people. The Hamish Allan centre is also performing an invaluable role in Glasgow.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister realise that the Scottish Homes target of 2,500 homes directly and indirectly provided for Scotland as a whole still leaves tens of thousands of families without a home to call their own? Does he realise that, 13 years ago, district councils built 7,000 houses in one year but that in 1992 they were so strapped for cash thanks to the Government that they could only build 1,650? When will the Minister tackle his responsibilities instead of toying with them?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The strategic responsibility will remain that of local authorities, and rightly so. Since 1979, more than 257,000 houses have been built in Scotland. Scottish Homes is right to provide units for the homeless and it is of course concentrating on furnished accommodation, which will be of considerable assistance. I believe that Glasgow is taking its statutory responsibilities seriously and is giving considerable assistance to those who need it.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose—
    Hon. Members: Cheerio.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Has an hon. Member resigned?
    My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that, during the last Scottish Question Time, I asked how many houses owned by local authorities were not occupied. Does not the number of unoccupied houses far exceed the number of people who want to be housed?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend the exact figure, but I understand that in the region of 26,000 to 28,000 local authority houses are vacant. Some authorities have a higher percentage of vacant houses than others and we are strongly urging them to bring those properties back into use. My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely relevant point. We also have a determined drive to bring back into use empty houses in the private sector and, through Scottish Homes, we are providing funding for that purpose. Scottish Homes has lead tenancy arrangements to enable housing associations to let property to homeless families, and empty private property is being used for that purpose.

    Fish Farming
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had about the situation in the fish farming industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): My right hon. Friend and I have received many representations from Scottish salmon farmers about the market and have had a number of constructive meetings with industry representatives to discuss it.
    Sir Russell Johnston: But, after all that, is the Minister satisfied that the Norwegians do not use concealed subsidies, severely distorting the market price? Why is he
    228
    obdurately opposed to producer-funded producer organisations, which most people in the industry believe are the only sensible way to keep a reasonable balance between supply and demand?
    Sir Hector Monro: I believe that the subject of the hon. Gentleman's first point is a matter for the European Commission. We have encouraged the industry to present the evidence to the Commission, which is considering whether to examine it formally. We are in close touch with the industry. I went to Norway to meet the Norwegian Fisheries Minister and, since then, we have managed to effect a meeting between representatives of the Scottish and Norwegian industries to discuss the major problem of oversupply and the fact that far too many smelts are going into the sea.

    Employment Practices
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will issue guidelines on the employment practices of Scottish councils.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no specific locus in the employment practices of local authorities. It is therefore not appropriate for him to issue guidelines on the subject.
    Mr. Oppenheim: We may have to be indulgent when it comes to some of the quainter customs of Scottish Labour politics, but is not one of the quirkier practices that of issuing pink application forms to general applicants for jobs on Monklands district council but green application forms to friends and close relatives of its councillors? Does that novel application of the share and share alike principle explain why so many close friends and relatives of Monklands Labour councillors have jobs on the council? Now that at least some councillors have been honourable enough to stand up against the practice, should not we expect Monklands Members of Parliament to show the same concern about the socialist can of worms on their own doorstep?
    Mr. Stewart: As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a continuing silence from Opposition Members on the effect on their constituents of those and similar practices. I understand, however, that the practice that my hon. Friend rightly describes as novel has been abandoned, or at least suspended.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: If the Minister is so concerned about the alleged employment practices of local authorities in Scotland, why did he make such a ridiculous statement at the recent conference of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy? He knows that, because of his proposals for the reorganisation of Scottish councils, more than 100,000 local government employees in Scotland are extremely concerned about their employment. Would not it help if he made a statement today saying that those people will be covered by the European Union acquired rights directive, thereby giving peace of mind to employees who do a worthwhile job for all of us in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I have paid tribute again and again to the work of Scottish local government employees. I am not sure which of the statements that I made at the conference the hon. Gentleman meant, but I announced there a number

    229
    of additional members of the committee that will advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, and I believe that the nominations were widely accepted as objective.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern in Scotland about the revelations that constantly appear in the Scottish press about the employment practices at Monklands? Too many people are now employed by local government to perform specific narrow duties; they are really doing jobs that have been created for friends. Is not it time that my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State took powers to deal with those problems?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend makes the interesting suggestion that the Secretary of State should take additional powers in such matters. Perhaps some of the Opposition Members who have been pressing on the subject will give their full support to any endeavour to take such powers. The Secretary of State's present powers are limited, however. No doubt Opposition Members who regard Monklands district council as a model of perfection and a model of how Scottish Labour authorities should work, will have been confirmed in their belief in the excellence of that council by the recent "Newsnight" coverage.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us move things on more rapidly.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that there is continuing concern in the city of Aberdeen about the unsatisfactory nature of the recent termination of the chief executive's contract of employment, at a cost of nearly £300,000 to the local community? Does he accept that it is not satisfactory that such a matter should be left entirely to a local council which many people feel has failed to discharge its duties, and that there is no means of securing an independent inquiry? Does not he believe that the rules should be changed to allow for that?
    Mr. Stewart: As I said when the hon. Gentleman raised that matter before, I accept his concern about Aberdeen —a concern which has also been expressed across the party political divide. My right hon. Friend and I have examined the Scottish Office's powers in the matter, and my right hon. Friend simply has no locus at present. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to suggest specific legislative changes, we will of course consider them.

    Forestry Commission
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the Government's proposals for the future of the Forestry Commission in Scotland.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Lang: My fellow forestry Ministers and I are currently considering the report of the forestry review group, and will make an announcement in due course.
    Mr. Clarke: A few months ago, I asked the same question of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). My constituents and employees at the world-renowned Bush estates research
    230
    establishment in Midlothian are wondering what the future holds. Many people in rural areas depend on the Forestry Commission. We are being drip-fed by the press on supposed future changes in non-privatisation policies affecting the commission. The Government have had long enough to consider the matter, and the public are entitled to know what are the Government's policies on a matter that is is of major importance in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: I am not responsible for speculation in the columns of the press, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that among the many considerations that must be taken into account in deciding the way forward for the commission are the circumstances of the many dedicated staff who work for it throughout Scotland. I am keen to remove as soon as possible any uncertainty that exists. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is important not just to make decisions soon but to get them right.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that virtually every industry that we privatised in the 1980s and 1990s has been successful? The reason is that those privatisations brought about a change in management culture. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the important point in respect of the Forestry Commission is not who owns the land but whether public rights of access are maintained and the forests are managed in an environmentally friendly manner?
    Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend that what matters most for the forestry industry's future is that decisions affecting it are taken in the context of the industry's interests. That includes not only the commercial development and growth of our forests but environmental and recreational considerations, including access, and the need to encourage more planting. We are taking all those issues and others carefully into account in working towards a solution.
    Mr. McFall: It is clear that the Government took no account of public opinion from the outset. It took a campaign before the Government surrendered in the face of public opinion. More than 300,000 acres in Scotland have been sold since 1981.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Is there a question coming? I have not heard one. Hon. Members should begin with a question, not a statement.
    Mr. McFall: Given that the forestry review group's report has been with the Secretary of State for more than two months, will he address the concerns felt in Scotland, so that the public may be reassured that the Government will not achieve by the back door that which the public manifestly do not want them to achieve by the front door?
    Mr. Lang: We are keen to take on board all the representations that we have received and continue to receive. We have received 3,600 representations from individuals, and 600 organisations have made their views plain to us. All are being carefully considered. When we bring forward our proposals in due course, members of the public and others will have an opportunity to react to them.
    Mr. Kynoch: When my right hon. Friend considers the review group's report, will he bear in mind the singular importance of so-called community woodlands—those at the edge of villages and towns, such as Pannanich woodlands at Ballater in my constituency? Access for the

    231
    general public, residents and tourists is extremely important for recreational and leisure activities. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that my constituents enjoy future security of access?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I assure him that, in our consideration of the way forward, we are taking close account of the importance of community woodlands.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept the view of the timber industry that the overwhelming requirement at this time is for more trees to be planted —not to have land sold off, which would divert resources from what is properly required?
    Mr. Lang: I agree that the interests of the timber industry are important in our consideration of the issues. The importance of encouraging more planting is central to the way forward. The review group's terms of reference specifically included the need to consider the operation of incentives.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend agree, in the interests of open government, to publish the review group's report?
    Mr. Lang: No, we do not propose to publish the report, because the internal review group comprised officials who advise Ministers. However, we shall publish our proposals and there will be plenty of opportunity for all aspects to be fully considered in due course.

    Highlands and Islands
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the economic prospects of the highlands and islands.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am confident that the economic regeneration and diversification currently evident throughout the highlands and islands will continue to flourish as the wider economic recovery being assisted by this Government's policies gathers momentum.
    Mr. Macdonald: In the light of the massive defence cuts that are being reported in the newspapers this week, when is there likely to be an announcement on the Royal Artillery range at Benbecula? Does the Minister agree that the range provides excellent and unique facilities for the armed forces, with the full support of the local community? Does he recognise that there is a strong case for its consolidation and expansion, with the use of more contracting out, rather than any talk of cuts or closure?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The matter is still being carefully considered. I understand that a decision is expected in about July. I was present when the hon. Gentleman took a delegation from the Western Isles to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement at the Ministry of Defence. I think that it would be fair to say that the delegation stressed, as did the hon. Gentleman, the importance of employment as well as the excellent arrangements that currently exist. No argument was missed. Indeed, mention was even made of the fact that the presence of the artillery range afforded protection for rare bird species, including waders, in the area. I do not think that any arguments were missed.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that representatives of the Scottish tourist board, which is funded by the Scottish Office, recently came to the House to address members of the Conservative Back-Bench tourism committee? Will he applaud the efforts of the board to promote the highlands and islands in the United States of America and in Canada, which will in turn promote the economic interests of the area?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, indeed. The Western Isles will have a growing tourist industry, which is extremely important to them. Tourism is the largest employer in Scotland, and that employment is growing. It is not the largest employer elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Developments such as the tourist centre at the Callanish stones—the Scottish version of Stonehenge—will attract up to 50,000 visitors to the Western Isles every year. The opening of the Skye bridge will greatly benefit the Western Isles through enormously increased tourism.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On the question of the Skye bridge, does the Minister accept that the benefit to the Western Isles, to Skye or to the highlands and islands generally will not be helped by the sky-high tolls that the Scottish Office will foist on local people? What will he do to remove that burden and to ensure that objective 1 funding for roads and infrastructure generally is genuine additional funding? We have already seen cuts in the roads budgets for the Highland region since the arrival of objective 1 funding.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, objective 1 funding will be additional. The bridge tolls will not be higher than the present ferry fares, so nobody will lose. If passenger traffic increases, as we anticipate, there may be scope for adjusting the tolls accordingly. We shall know more about that once the bridge is open. When the tolls have paid off the costs, it will be a free bridge. That is the quickest way the islanders of Skye will ever get a free bridge.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister agree that the prospects for the highlands and islands could be improved if the European Community's interregional programme on maritime borders were amended to include maritime regions? Will he join us in trying to persuade the Department of Trade and Industry, which is supposed to represent the entire United Kingdom on this issue, to persuade the Community to amend the Interreg programme to include maritime regions?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting representation, which I will be sure to discuss with my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. He will appreciate that I do not have lead responsibility. One of a Minister's first rules is that he should not exceed his responsibilities. I shall, however, follow up the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that this afternoon we have heard of something more remarkable than the conversion of St. Paul on the road to Damascus? Does he appreciate that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) is now opposed to defence cuts and in favour of contracting out? How much further will the Labour party go?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Attitudes have changed considerably over the 14 years since Margaret

    233
    Thatcher came to power. The goalposts have moved significantly. That will be of great significance to our country in future.

    Damp Housing, Glasgow
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of community councils and tenants' associations to discuss the problems of damp housing in Glasgow, with particular reference to the Govan constituency.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet community councils and tenants' associations to discuss damp housing in Glasgow. In the first instance, it is for the City of Glasgow district council to assess the housing needs of its area and to set out its plans for tackling damp housing in the housing plan and capital programme, which it submits to the the Scottish Office.
    The council's gross capital allocations for investment in public and private housing total £121.25 million in the current year.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that there is a problem of dampness in Glasgow and in my constituency? Does he accept that the money that the Government are allowing the council to spend is inadequate? Does he agree that he should be prepared to meet delegations of those who live in damp housing so that they can explain to him the effect that it has on their lives, the lives of their families and the educational opportunities of their youngsters? Will he not walk by on the other side?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have been acutely aware of the problem since serving on a Select Committee that considered dampness in council houses in Scotland. Since that time, substantial progress has been made. Damp housing is the biggest issue facing housing authorities. They are right to target their efforts to where the problem is most severe. Through the urban regeneration initiatives in Ferguslie Park and Castlemilk, we have proved that that can be done successfully. Housing authorities have to phase and prioritise the work, which will be successfully completed but cannot all be done overnight.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Have not the Government invested a large amount of money in housing improvements in Scotland? Having spent £2.2 billion on housing improvements over the years, would not it be more sensible to ensure that authorities keep their rents at a sensible level so that they can invest in improving the declining number of houses that they still own, while people who have bought their houses make their own improvements at no cost to the public purse?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In past years, rents have been so low that less has been spent on management and maintenance. If more had been spent on it, there would be less dampness in houses. I confirm that about £900 million is being spent on capital investment in housing. That includes the work of Scottish Homes, the new towns and the local authorities. A lot can be done with £900 million in a year. The work must be prioritised and the most severe problems tackled effectively.
    Mr. Wray: Why have the Government been encouraging local authorities in Scotland to implement Rachmanism by allowing them to collect rents for houses that are below tolerable standards? Why do they encourage local authorities not to tell people of their rights under the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Local authorities have been told that houses that are below tolerable standards must be one of their top four priorities. The hon. Member uses the word "Rachmanism" in relation to public sector authorities. That used to be a slur on the private sector, but I accept that housing that is below tolerable standards must be rooted out wherever it arises.

    Local Services
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local services.
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the provision of local services.
    Mr. Stewart: As I informed the House on 23 March, my right hon. Friend and I are next scheduled to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 17 June as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.
    Mr. Dunnachie: I wish to ask the Minister the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), but to which he received no reply. When the reorganisation in local authorities takes place, will the Minister guarantee that the employees of local authorities will be covered by the European Union acquired rights directive, which will protect their wages, service and conditions, and pensions in the event that they are transferred to another employer?
    Mr. Stewart: As I said in the Standing Committee, to which I know I am not allowed to refer, and as I have said on many occasions, the overwhelming number of local authority employees will be transferred to the new authorities.
    Of course, in the case of the acquired rights directive, certain cases may have to be decided by the courts. I have, however, made absolutely clear the position in respect of the overwhelming number of local authority employees. We have also set up a staff advisory committee and commission which will examine these and related problems.
    Mr. McMaster: As you know, Madam Speaker, I am not one to curry favour, but may I preface my question by wishing you many happy returns on this, the second anniversary of your speakership?
    Does the Minister accept that more and more people throughout Scotland do not trust the Tories on taxes, on local government or on their plans for water? Does he realise that people throughout Scotland—no matter what he may claim—believe that these super-quangos will be the building blocks for privatisation? Why does no one believe him?
    Mr. Stewart: May we entirely associate ourselves, Madam Speaker, with the hon. Gentleman's first remarks?

    235
    I must make it absolutely clear that the Government have no plans to privatise water and sewerage services in Scotland, through the front door, the back door or any other door.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a move to all-purpose, single-tier local authorities will result in more accountable, more local, more responsive, more sensitive and more cost-effective service delivery in the towns and cities of Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. All political parties in Scotland at one time or another have supported the principle of single-tier authorities, because of all the advantages to which my hon. Friend has alluded. It is significant that in his area, the city of Aberdeen, the proposals for a unitary city authority have, as I understand it, been supported by every political party.
    Mr. McAllion: When the Minister meets COSLA will he tell it why, after 15 years of Conservative Government, there are still tens of thousands of homeless Scots, hundreds of thousands of Scottish homes riddled with damp and condensation and acute shortages of decent, affordable houses for rent? Is it because the Government's housing policies are succeeding or because they are failing? The people have a right to know.
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing has already dealt with that subject, but we shall certainly point out to COSLA that aggregate external finance—Government assistance to Scottish local authorities—per head of population is 46 per cent. higher in Scotland than in England and 24 per cent. higher in Scotland than in Wales. These are the real figures; they demonstrate beyond peradventure the Government's commitment to local authority services in Scotland.
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend remind the Opposition that those houses were all built by local authorities under socialist control and were probably designed by socialist planners—and that if there is any complaint about them it should be directed to those who got it so wrong?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The problems to which Opposition Members have referred are overwhelmingly to be found in socialist-built estates, put up after the last war—that is, within the last generation. The Labour councils that built them entertained misconceived ideas about the sort of living conditions and quality of life that people in Scotland increasingly want. People want a variety of tenure types and it is our policy to provide such a variety.
    Mr. Wallace: The Minister said again that the Government do not propose to privatise Scotland's water. In response to the Strathclyde referendum the hon. Gentleman said that the Scottish people either did not understand or did not believe that. Why do the Government have such a crisis of credibility in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not believe that the Government in any way have a crisis of credibility in Scotland. The principle of single-tier authorities is widely popular. The hon. Gentleman's own experience as the Member of Parliament for a constituency including two island
    236
    authorities should suggest to him that the excellent experience there could be effectively translated to mainland Scotland.
    Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister give an example of a quasi-democratic Government anywhere that has ever reacted with such arrogance and contempt to an expression of popular will as has marked the Government's response to the million-plus Scots who voted in the water ballot? Does he have no sense of shame at the fact that when we should all be celebrating the rebirth of democracy in South Africa we are witnessing the death of local democracy in Scotland?
    Mr. Wilson: What an obscene comparison.
    Mr. Stewart: I think that I agree with the sedentary intervention.
    Of course every hon. Member welcomes the rebirth of democracy in South Africa and wishes that country well. The hon. Gentleman's comparison is absolutely absurd and will not be generally accepted by supporters of the mainstream political parties in Scotland.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is not it revealing that yet again, for the third month running, the Secretary of State for Scotland has chosen to pass the buck for answering questions on local government—the very centrepiece of the legislative programme that is before him? When the Minister meets COSLA, will he be ready for the anger and disgust that that body will show at what the Government propose to do to Scotland's water? Does he not yet appreciate that all the promises about privatisation that are being made by a Government tainted by their deceit on taxation can never convince the Scottish people that water will not eventually end up in the hands of people who will seek to make profits from it? The people of Scotland want their precious, unique and plentiful supplies of water to be in the hands of locally elected, locally accountable representatives, not in the dubious care of the hand-picked cronies of the Conservative party, and they will express that view next Thursday in the regional elections.
    Mr. Stewart: There is a question specifically about water further down on the Order Paper. However, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the deceit on this issue is the continuing deceit of Opposition Members, who try to pretend to people in Scotland that the Government's proposals are quite different from what they very clearly are.

    Sheltered Housing, Glasgow
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans Scottish Homes has to build sheltered housing in Glasgow.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In 1993–94, Scottish Homes invested £3.5 million in sheltered housing projects for the elderly in Glasgow. In the current year, this provision is expected to increase to £4.5 million. Over the two-year period, this represents the provision of 146 additional units.
    Mr. Martin: May I draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to the Royston road district in my constituency, where there are several housing estates—the Charles street fiats, Blochairn and, further up the road, Germiston? Many of the residents have lived there all their

    237
    lives—some of the housing is pre-war—and now require sheltered accommodation. I urge the Minister to ask Scottish Homes to put some of the £4 million into an area that badly needs sheltered housing. In fact, there is not a single sheltered housing project there.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will make inquiries on the hon. Gentleman's behalf to see whether this can be done or could be fitted into a future programme as soon as practicable and will let him know how I get on. This year, the provision for special needs projects in Glasgow is expected to be about £12 million overall.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the transitional costs of local government reform.
    Mr. Lang: My latest estimate of the transitional costs of local government reform is that they will be considerably outweighed by savings as the new councils become established.
    Mr. Dalyell: I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie). What categories of individuals affected by the acquired rights directive do the Government have in mind when they say that they have to go to court?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman should look at the reply already given by my hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. Gentleman's question is about the estimated transitional costs of local government reform. I have already said that they will be far outweighed by savings. For example, Angus anticipates savings of £8.5 million over 15 years, while the Borders region expects £22 million over the same period.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: In reply to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), the Under-Secretary of State said that he could not recall the detail of his speech to the CIPFA conference. Indeed, it was an unmemorable speech. However, the hon. Gentleman said that in the reorganisation of local government, local authority staff should—I think this was the phrase—go for management buy-outs if their jobs were under threat. What sort of advice is that for local government officials who have served local government well? In addition, would not that add to the costs of the reorganisation, which in any event are likely to get out of hand?
    Mr. Lang: When the hon. Gentleman checks the official record of my hon. Friend's speech, he will realise that he did not represent his words accurately.
    On the hon. Gentleman's question about the future of local authority staff, my hon. Friend made it quite clear that the vast majority will transfer to new local authorities. The Opposition's estimates of the costs of local government reform are specifically and largely related to implied redundancies, which are likely to be relatively limited. However, to the extent that they do lead to additional costs, those will be more than outweighed—and in the longer term substantially outweighed—by subsequent savings.
    Mr. McLeish: Why are the Government deliberately flouting European legislation by refusing to transfer all local authority employees to the new unitary councils? If
    238
    every one of the 300,000 local government work force was transferred, along with TUPE and the acquired rights directives, there would be no financial savings from the reorganisation. Would not that further wreck the Government's crumbling credibility on this disastrous, divisive and highly dangerous piece of legislation? Or is it just another piece of irresponsible behaviour by the Government, who are willing to put the workers, their families and their livelihoods into the political arena? How can the Secretary of State genuinely want to save 30,000 jobs if he is putting them on the scrapheap of Scotland, where there are already 230,000 people looking for work?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is clearly confused and muddled about the whole exercise. Redundancies probably will result from local government reform. Indeed, I think it desirable that local authorities should be run more efficiently. We should halve the number of local authorities. To the extent that there are redundancies, those will lead to more substantial savings. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

    European Regional Fund
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants that Scotland has received from the European regional fund since its inception.
    Mr. Stewart: Since the inception of the European regional development fund in 1975, Scotland has benefited from awards totalling almost £1.2 billion.
    Sir David Knox: Does not that show the European Community's commitment, through the structural funds, to Scotland's needs? Can my hon. Friend tell us how different parts of Scotland will benefit over the next few years?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right to point to the figures, which underline the European Community's commitment to Scotland through those funds. He asked about the benefits over the next few years. The highlands and islands will receive £240 million over six years, under objective 1 status. The west and east of Scotland will receive £330 million between them over the next three years, under objective 2 status. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry announced earlier this week, £108 million will be available to Dumfries and Galloway, Borders, north and west Grampian and rural Stirling and uplands Tayside over the next six years, under objective 5b status. That shows that there will be significant benefits throughout Scotland.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Minister agree that no amount of European regional funding can compensate the Scottish economy, and particularly the Fife economy, for the Government's anti-Rosyth bias and for the broken promises and policies which have led to mass unemployment? Does he further agree that no amount of European regional funds can compensate for the loss of 6,712 jobs which are related to Rosyth naval base? Will he commit himself to ensuring that the Prime Minister keeps the clear and categorical commitment that he made in 1991 that Rosyth naval base would stay operational?
    Mr. Stewart: I wholly reject the hon. Lady's allegation that the Government are in some way anti-Rosyth. The case for the dockyard and the base has been put forward with great vigour by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
    In relation to the specific question of the future of the naval base, the hon. Lady will know from the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that the Ministry is examining all aspects of defence support activity, of which naval infrastructure is just one area. It is regrettable that there has been a great deal of what I fear may be damaging speculation.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while I welcome the money from the European Union that will come to uplands Tayside, I do not forget that every pound which comes from the European Union costs the taxpayers in the United Kingdom in excess of £1.60 to get it back? Is not it important to recognise that we are getting our own money back, albeit considerably reduced in value?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not want to get involved in an extended answer to my hon. Friend's arithmetic. His views on the matter are always put with great vigour and robustness, but I am glad that he welcomes the assistance to north Tayside and his constituency.
    Mr. Kirkwood: While I welcome the capital allocation from Europe that the Minister has just announced in terms of objective 5b for the Borders, may I ask the Minister to accept that the cuts in capital consents for the Borders region for next year make it impossible—nearly—for the council to take any advantage of those funds because, of course, European funds must be matched from national resources?
    Mr. Stewart: European structural funding for the Borders, as elsewhere, is fully additional to the bodies which receive it, and for local authorities that means additional section 94 consent. Matching funding, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, must come from each organisation's existing capital expenditure plans. I believe that that acts to encourage value for money from European-funded projects.
    Mr. George Robertson: May I return to the statement by the Minister on the damaging speculation about Rosyth, especially in relation to potential claims against the European regional fund? I agree with the Minister that the speculation about Rosyth is extremely damaging, and no more damaging than to the thousands of human beings in that part of the world whose jobs depend on it.
    I remind the Minister of the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1991:
    "I am glad that the Prime Minister has recognised the strength of the arguments for Rosyth and the case I advanced in support".
    Will the pledges about Rosyth be repeated here today? Will the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister tell the House that they stand by the commitments to Rosyth, or will this go down as yet another broken promise in the encyclopaedia of deception of which the Government are guilty?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is being pretty ingenious—but, of course, in order—in asking that question in relation to European regional development funds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have made the position absolutely clear.

    Scottish Water
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish local water authorities over the future of Scottish Water.
    Mr. Lang: Many local authorities responded during the Government's extensive public consultation last year. It is regrettable that they have been prevented from having constructive discussion with the Scottish Office by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities'campaign of non-co-operation.
    Mr. McKelvey: Nevertheless, does not the Secretary of State begin to get more than an inkling that the people of Scotland simply do not trust the Government on their future plans for water? They're no' daft. They have observed what happened in England. The water boards that were set up were replaced by quangos and the water was then flogged off. The results were higher prices and thousands of people deprived of a water supply. We will not tolerate that in Scotland. If the Secretary of State wishes to allay the fears of people in Scotland, why does not he scrap the present plans for water or, if we must have boards, let them have a majority of elected councillors or other elected representatives.
    Mr. Lang: The reform of the water and sewerage industry in Scotland is driven by the fact that, with the disappearance of many regional authorities, it is necessary to find new arrangements to ensure that water and sewerage are delivered as efficiently and cheaply as possible. That is the motive behind the establishment of three publicly owned water authorities. Privatisation is not part of that plan and does not enter into our considerations.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend accept my welcome for the three publicly owned water and sewerage authorities in Scotland? Does he anticipate, as I do, a better service for my constituents as a consequence, particularly when one thinks of the sewerage provisions? Beaches in my constituency have been branded among the dirtiest in Europe. Strathclyde plans to build, rather belatedly, a sewage plant up against new housing, behind a beach and beneath Greenan castle. Surely things can only get better.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question. I want Members to be brisk. I have said so many times.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. It is precisely to take account of the need for new investment such as that identified by my hon. Friend that we propose the development of the three new publicly owned water authorities.
    Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State has again ruled out the privatisation of water. Will he confirm that the new quangos would have power to franchise out all or some of their services to private companies? Will he rule that out as well?
    Mr. Lang: I certainly will not rule out the attraction of private sector finance into the industry. That is one of the reasons why we went for the system that we did. To enable the public water authorities to raise money in the private sector for new capital investment while they continue to control and own the assets of the industry is precisely the way to relieve the pressure on the Scottish Office block and

    241
    prevent the need to take money away from housing, roads, health, education and all the other matters that the hon. Gentleman and his party regard as so important.
    Mr. Galbraith: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the members of the new water and sewerage boards will all be elected? What does the Secretary of State have against democracy? Is it just that every time he tries it, he loses?
    Mr. Lang: I am a strong supporter of democracy, as my record bears testimony to and as the local government results on 5 May will demonstrate. Membership of the water authorities and other matters are still to be decided, but there will certainly be local authority representation on them, alongside the necessary skills that we shall need from the business community to ensure the efficient operation of those authorities for the benefit of consumers.

    Woodland
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the United Kingdom is covered in woodland; and what was the figure in 1964 and 1980.
    Sir Hector Monro: About 10 per cent of the United Kingdom is covered by woodland. The proportion was 7 per cent. in 1964 and 9 per cent. in 1980.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for an extremely helpful reply. I am sure that it will please all Members.
    242
    Why has that increase taken place and what steps will he take to ensure that the amount of woodland continues to grow? Does he agree that woodland is a valuable wildlife habitat?
    Sir Hector Monro: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's latter point. It is important that we enhance the environment through Forestry Commission and private woodlands. One of the responsibilities of the review group has been to advise on incentives to increase planting by giving that careful consideration and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will report to the House in due course. We need to increase planting, especially of conifers, to ensure a healthy timber industry in the future.
    Mr. Worthington: Is not it true that most of the forests that were sold off did not have access agreements, so people have been denied access to the countryside? Will the Minister undertake that, whatever is proposed for the control of forests, freedom to roam and access are not merely one of the considerations, but the top consideration?
    Sir Hector Monro: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Only one access agreement has been reached with a local authority because local authorities have been slow to discuss the matter with us and to come to management agreements. That will be an important part of my right hon. Friend's consideration of the review group's advice. Access has a very high priority.

House of Commons Emblem
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I undertook, in response to a point of order yesterday, to make a statement on the rules relating to the use of the House emblem for party political purposes. Those rules are clearly set out in the "Members Handbook" and in a separate leaflet published by the Serjeant at Arms. They make it clear that the designs and symbols of the House should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded as having the authority of the House.
In particular, neither the crowned portcullis nor the royal arms, whether or not associated with the words "House of Commons", may be used
"in connection with…supporting the return of any person to public office."
The application of those rules rests on the good sense of individual Members. Where they have any doubt about their application, Members should consult the Serjeant at Arms.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have listened carefully to your statement, and I have received the letter that you sent to me. I am grateful for your response and for your defence of the rights and privileges associated with being a Member of this House.
However, can you confirm that, in 1986, the then leader of the Liberal party gave the same explanation for an exactly similar breach of the rules in an election campaign, and was reprimanded in the same way? I ask for your guidance as to whether that conduct could be construed as a deliberate and calculated campaign to distort the rules of this House, and whether it is a contempt.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Further to my point of order yesterday, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that, having received the letter in which you asked me for evidence that the breach of the rules was on-going, I have given you today the names and addresses of constituents in Liverpool who have received the same letter with the same letterhead since the undertaking given to you?
Madam Speaker: I received the later undertaking some time around lunchtime—at about the same time as the hon. Gentleman sent me a letter. I believe that the dates in his letter are not clear, but I have not yet had an opportunity to examine his correspondence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Just a moment.
I think that I have made a very clear statement today. If any Members have any criticism of another Member of this House, the usual procedure is to refer the matter to an appropriate Committee or to table a substantive motion about the Member's behaviour. That is the way in which we have always proceeded. If the two hon. Members who represent Liverpool are not satisfied, that is the way in which they must proceed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: As far as the Chair is concerned, that is the end of the matter. If there is another point of order, I am willing to hear it, but that matter is closed.
Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it another point of order?
Mr. Burns: It is a general point and is not specifically to do with the point—
Madam Speaker: It had better be a different point of order, because I have just made a statement to the House and the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to raise that matter again. Is he going to rethink? I shall ask him to resume his seat if he is raising that same point of order again.
Mr. Burns: As it is a general point of order, I will try not to test your patience, Madam Speaker. If it is perceived that an hon. Member has, unintentionally or otherwise, made a mistake according to the rules of the House, is it customary for that hon. Member then to apologise to the House for the mistake that has been made?
Madam Speaker: That is a rather hypothetical question. I hope that most hon. Members would have sufficient good manners to do that, but I am afraid that during my Speakership they have not always done so.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There is, with your permission, another way to proceed about this matter.
Madam Speaker: I hope that my authority is not being challenged by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Faulds: I am trying to back it up, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: That makes a change. I will hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Faulds: Madam Speaker, as you know, I have been a long-time supporter, colleague and admirer—I love you dearly. But I do have a simple resolution to the problem. There has been persistent misuse of this emblem over my many years in the House. There is one way that it could be satisfactorily resolved. The House of Commons emblem should be branded on the left or right haunch of hon. Members, depending on their party affiliation, when they have offended.
Madam Speaker: As usual, that is a frivolous remark from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have taken into account what you have said, but I would like you to clarify one point. If, before the local elections, I sent a letter on House of Commons paper to the constituents of another hon. Member with the intention of ensuring the election of, say, a Labour candidate over a Liberal Democrat candidate, would I be in order?
Madam Speaker: Perhaps I should repeat the words so that they are very clear. In particular, neither the crowned portcullis nor the royal arms, whether or not associated with … the words "House of Commons", may be used
"in connection with … supporting the return of any person to public office."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On this historic day in South Africa, would it not be a good idea to get hold of one of those pieces of paper with the House of Commons crest and send congratulations to Nelson Mandela on behalf of those of us

245
who supported him in his long campaign to end apartheid and to get the vote? You would be doing a wonderful job if you sent it on behalf of those who wish to send such a letter. I will find you such a piece of paper if you do not have any—or I will borrow it from the hon. Gentleman.
Madam Speaker: As a matter of fact, I do not think I have that sort of notepaper; I have only my own notepaper, which carries the Speaker's emblem.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the point that you have already made about the politicisation of the portcullis and crown, do you not believe that there could be a saving to the House—and indeed a depoliticisation—if we just stuck to using paper with a green emblem instead of having blue and red also?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is taking me to pastures new, about which I shall make no comment at this time.

Company Accounts (Payments to Creditors)
3.38 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure the publication of information relating to the payment of company creditors and to encourage prompt settlement; and for connected purposes.
This is not a new subject—indeed, over the years it has received a great deal of parliamentary and outside attention. One of the purposes of my Bill is to try to ensure more prompt payment within commerce, particularly to small companies, where prompt payment may actually determine their long-term viability.
The background to the Bill is that, in 1992, the Government said in the Budget that they would be prepared to issue two consultation papers—which were subsequently released in January and May 1993—about how to improve prompt payment of creditors in commerce. That decision followed a 1978 Law Commission report about the rate of statutory interest for commercial debts, a 1986 report about payment by the Confederation of British Industry entitled "A Guide to Good Practice", as well as a great deal of parliamentary activity in the last few years.
That culminated in the Interest on Debts Bill for commercial contracts, which was introduced in 1990 by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). It also resulted in an early-day motion, which had the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House—as does my Bill —and was signed by no fewer than 129 Members. That early-day motion was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who is now Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs at the Department of Trade and Industry.
I appreciate that the Government are consulting on how to improve prompt payment in commerce, because it is a significant problem, particularly for smaller companies. The CBI has estimated that, at any one time, those companies alone are owed £100 million in overiue rather than late debts. The Times recently estimated that the cost to industry of late payment is about £1.5 billion a year, which is equal to the entire amount injected into the venture capital industry in any one year.
The problem of late payment primarily affects small companies, for three reasons. First, they do not have the commercial clout to ensure that creditors pay up. That is emphasised to me time and again by small companies in my area. Secondly, the administration for recovering debt is relatively and proportionately much more expensive for small companies. Thirdly, late payment is a particular problem for small companies because they generate a significant number of the new jobs upon which we rely. The labour force survey has estimated that, up until the end of the 1980s, small companies generated 1.85 million jobs—13 times more than those generated by their larger brethren.
If we are to maintain successful small companies and the investment they make, it is crucial that they are paid on time. It has been estimated that 50 per cent. of British companies rely upon short-term debt, so prompt payment is all the more important for them than it is for German companies, where only 14 per cent. rely on such debt.
Prompt payment is a current problem rather than one of the past, because, as we come out of recession, more and more companies want to upgrade their activities, invest in

247
stock and additional debtors. As a result of such activities those companies will be subject to a certain amount of financial pressure. Trade Indemnity has blamed late payment for the fact that, despite the economic upturn, there was an 11 per cent. rise in first quarter business failures compared with the previous three months. That is why Trade Indemnity's chief economist, William Simpson, has said:
"For two quarters the running, average value of unpaid debt has risen. The scale of unpaid debt threatens many otherwise successful firms, despite economic recovery."
Many possible solutions to the problem have been suggested. One of the most important is the attempt to try to change the culture within which people trade. Richard Brucciani, chairman of the CBI's smaller firms council, has said:
"The problem of late payment requires a change of culture and attitude in business, and a published statement of corporate payment policy"—
that is one of the two suggestions in my Bill—
"would give suppliers a useful insight into this."
Because of the shortage of time, I will not describe the possible solutions proposed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and the Government to promote prompt payment. One of the most prominent of those suggestions, however, is the imposition of a statutory rate of interest on overdue debts, but opinion on the desirability of such a solution is not unanimous. It appears that the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors are prepared to support it, although the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants all have reservations.
A statutory rate of interest would have many disadvantages. It would require companies to undertake additional administration. It might institutionalise late payment, rewarding it by a statutory rate of interest, in the sense that it is likely to be informally ignored by small companies which want further business from their larger customers. It has not been noticeably successful in encouraging prompt payment in France or Germany, where it currently operates. Hence I make two proposals today, which are simple and which do something to change the business culture in the way that I have described.
My first proposal is that every public company—public companies are generally synonymous with larger companies—should be required to make a statement of its
248
payment patterns and its payment policy in its audited accounts. If it is a conglomerate, it would have to do it on a subsidiary or a sectoral basis.
The CBI has suggested a specific form of statement:
"It is this company's policy to negotiate payment terms with suppliers at the outset of the deal and to pay within the time scale agreed."
In a sense, that says everything and nothing. It is peace and motherhood; it is a statement of good intentions. Although I am sure that we shall all be happy with it, people wish to know not only whether companies sign up to prompt payment, especially the larger companies, but whether they carry it out in practice. That is why my second proposal is crucial if we are to change the culture in the way that we have described.
My second proposal is that every public company should be required to publish an analysis of the aging of its creditors in its public accounts, so that creditors or shareholders or institutions or the general public can see to what extent its practice matches its rhetoric. There are many ways of doing that. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, in its reply to the Government consultation document, mentioned three. They all have different drawbacks and different benefits.
I am absolutely sure that it is not beyond the wit of the accountancy profession to come up with an easily understandable, reasonably consistent, way of describing the aging of creditors and the way in which firms fulfil the pledges they give about prompt payments in their company accounts that would allow potential customers to decide whether it was worth while dealing with those companies in advance rather than after the event, as would be the case with the statutory rate of interest.
My view is that, in the sense that it would give forewarning to small companies of late payment of debt, that would be a valuable measure. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Sir Anthony Durant, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Sebastian Coe, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. David Martin, Mr. Simon Burns.

Company Accounts (Payments to Creditors)
  COMPANY ACCOUNTS (PAYMENTS TO CREDITORS)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to ensure the publication of information relating to the payment of company creditors and to encourage prompt settlement; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
Orders of the Day
  Intelligence Services Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Intelligence Services Bill [Lords]
    New clause 1

      TRADE UNION RIGHTS (GCHQ)
      'In fulfilling the functions specified in section 3 of this Act, staff at GCHQ shall enjoy trade union rights in accordance with Convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation.'.—[Dr. John Cunningham.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.49 pm
      Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This is not a new issue; indeed, it is a long-standing issue, and one on which Government and Opposition are completely divided. It involves what we consider to be the fundamental right of everyone to belong to a trade union: that is a basic principle in any democracy, and we make no apology for reasserting our view on it today.
      In 1949, the United Kingdom ratified convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation, which set out this right along with many others. From the time of that Labour Government onwards—through many Conservative Administrations—that presented no problems to us as a nation; only in 1984 did the Conservative Government led by Lady Thatcher decide to remove the right from a group of workers at the Government communications headquarters at Cheltenham.
      Understandably and properly, those people have been fighting for its re-establishment ever since—with the support of the Labour party, the Trades Union Congress and, I believe, the Liberal party, along with other parliamentary parties—in the face of the consistent and obstinate opposition of an obdurate Government. The new clause would re-establish the right unequivocally.
      Mr. Roger Evans: The right hon. Gentleman has stated in very broad terms that everyone has the right to join a trade union. Is he seriously suggesting that members of the armed forces should have such a right? That would go well beyond the terms of the International Labour Organisation convention, quite apart from being rather a startling proposition.
      Dr. Cunningham: In fact, it would not terrify me if they had such a right. In this instance, however, it was arbitrarily removed from people who had formerly enjoyed it.
      Mr. Rupert Allason: It was not removed arbitrarily.
      Hon. Members: Yes, it was.
      Dr. Cunningham: As usual, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is intervening from a sedentary position. He says that the action was not arbitrary, but it was taken without consultation. It was pointed out in the courts that the decision was against all natural justice: if that is not arbitrary, I do not know what is.
      The matter has been discussed at great length over the years, most recently in 1993. It is to the credit of the unions
      250
      involved that they have been willing to make considerable concessions about ring-fencing the members involved and no-strike agreements; they have gone as far as anyone could realistically expect them to go in trying to meet the point on which the Government insisted.
      Originally, the Government's position was that trade union membership somehow presented a threat to the security of our country, which was patent and absolute nonsense. No one ever explained why men and women at GCHQ who belonged to trade unions were a threat to our security, while members of the First Division Association in Whitehall—an organisation affiliated to the TUC, and probably handling a much greater volume of more sensitive and secret information—remained perfectly acceptable, and presented no such threat. That completely exposed the fallacy of the Government's argument.
      The concessions were offered during a series of discussions, first with the Cabinet Secretary and then with the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister retreated to the position that being a member of a trade union at GCHQ would present a "conflict of loyalty." That is another general phrase that has not been defined or explained. If a conflict of loyalty is involved in belonging to a trade union at GCHQ, why does not the same apply to the Ministry of Defence and, indeed, the Cabinet Office?
      That was simply another excuse to get the Government out of having to concede that the decision was wrong in principle when it was made, that it remains wrong in principle and that it has become a kind of political totem pole for a Conservative Government, and a Conservative party, with no credible or respectable arguments or evidence to support their position.
      That puts Britain in a unique and unenviable position. Alone among western democracies, Britain has been isolated because it is in conflict with not only convention 87 of the ILO but that body's decision in 1991, when the conference voted by 160 to one against Britain. A decision similar to that taken by the Government has not been and would not be contemplated by any of our neighbours and partners in the European Union, by the United States of America or by any other democratic country.
      A further bit of double-speak, if that is the appropriate phrase—it generally is for Ministers of this Government —is that the Government are sometimes moved to express
      criticism of other countries' human rights records. We
      often join the Government in doing so, but the reality is that, as long as the ban persists, the Government's own human rights record will always be open to criticism, and that criticism will continue.
      It was recently the 10th anniversary of the decision, first, to remove the right to trade union membership, and, secondly, to dismiss a number of people from their employment when they refused to surrender what they regarded as an inalienable right for them, their colleagues and for people in general. That anniversary was commemorated in a rally, and we wish to make it clear —it is obvious, in any event—that those people and the unions that represent them intend to continue their campaign until they have succeeded in their aim.
      It is now clear to them, and, I think, to the country at large, that they will succeed only when the Government have left office and been replaced by a Labour Government who will restore rights to people working at GCHQ. We would lose no time in doing so.
      It is not tenable for the Government to persist in their mulish obstinacy, especially as, following the discussions

      251
      that took place and the concessions that were made, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Britain's security would be threatened in any way if the Government were finally to admit that they had made a mistake, and reversed their decision.
      Mr. David Winnick: My right hon. Friend may remember that, on the 10th anniversary of the decision, I was given leave, after a Division, to bring in a ten-minute Bill. Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the 14 employees who were sacked because they refused to give up their trade union membership but who defended their principles, as dissidents have done in different circumstances in, for example, the Soviet Union? Those people continue their campaign to this day. Are they not the very best of our citizens, people who refuse to be intimidated but who stand up for their principles and wait for the time when victory will be theirs?
      Dr. Cunningham: I certainly pay tribute to those men and women, because they are willing to make sacrifices to fight for what they believe to be right. It is exactly such people—those with determination and principles—that our country needs above all others. It is on such determination to defend democratic rights and principles that our long-term survival as a democratic society depends. They deserve a generous and fulsome tribute and they have it from the Labour party as a whole and from its individual members. We shall continue to give them the support which my hon. Friend has outlined, and which was so admirably conveyed to the House when he introduced his Bill.
      Both in Britain and in the international community, the Government have no arguments, no friends and no credibility on this issue. They have no reason not to admit that the original decision was wrong, and was a violation of people's democratic rights—one that could easily be corrected without people being further humiliated by the Government's claim that somehow they simply could not be trusted to safeguard the interests of our country.
      We regard that as not only nonsense but a real denial of the long and honourable record of so many people who worked at GCHQ, precisely because they were interested in defending the democratic rights of our country 'and of all its citizens.
      Mr. Allason: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government's decision was not arbitrary, but was a response to a specific request initiated by Sir Brian Tovey, who was then director of GCHQ, that the Government should ban unions if they were unable to give the assurances required following the industrial action taken when the Soviets imposed martial law in Poland and invaded Afghanistan?
      Dr. Cunningham: I have already dealt once with the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the decision was not arbitrary. It was arbitrary, and a judge in court decided that it was. As for the merits or otherwise of industrial action, that matter is behind us now.
      Mr. Allason: Ah.
      Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do about the discussions between the Cabinet Secretary and representatives of the unions, and the discussions involving the Prime Minister. In those discussions, the
      252
      unions gave undertakings that they stand by. Even if I conceded that there was a problem in the first place, which I do not, there is no such problem any more.
      Far more working time is lost at GCHQ because of sickness and other valid reasons for absence from work than has ever been lost because of industrial action. A previous Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Nott—
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): Sir John Nott. He has not got a peerage yet.
      Dr. Cunningham: He had better get one soon, because his chances will run out after the next general election.
      Sir John Nott is on record as having said unequivocally that at no time had the operational efficiency of GCHQ ever been in jeopardy.
      Mr. Douglas French: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to identify which of the 14 people referred to by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—the people who declined to give up their trade union membership—took part in the strikes of 1979 to 1981?
      Dr. Cunningham: No, but I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman asks. This is not a question of who did and who did not take part in industrial action. People have a legitimate right to take part in industrial action; that is another right in a democratic society.
      The fact is that those people stuck to their principles, refused to resign their membership of a union of their choice, and were dismissed as a result. That is the issue of principle here, not whether they or their colleagues were involved in industrial disputes. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman's intervention means that he does not believe that people should have the right to take industrial action in a democratic society. If so, we disagree with him about that too.
      Having re-read our exchanges on Second Reading and in Committee, and having studied the record of the negotiations and discussions between the unions and the Government, I can say that the Government have not got a leg to stand on. They have no arguments, no justification, no support and no credibility.
      Sir Peter Emery: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, will he give way?
      Dr. Cunningham: I am trying to finish.
      Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman claimed that the opinion must be for protecting the human rights of the individuals in question. Was not an appeal made to the European Court of Human Rights? If so, what was the outcome?
      Dr. Cunningham: The reference to the European Court of Human Rights was rejected, but not on its merits. The application to the International Labour Organisation was supported in international law—the Government are always priding themselves on taking a stance based on international law. Britain is a signatory to the convention but the Government reneged on it. I believe that the matter will, justifiably, return to the ILO later this year. I have no doubt that the case and the democratic rights of the individuals in question will be upheld once more.

      253
      The Government have no case in international law or on the basis of democratic rights. They have no evidence to support their allegations about conflict of loyalty. The Government have no supporters and no friends. If they had any sense—sadly, they do not have any of that either—they would accept new clause 1, and we could put this sad, sorry and squalid episode behind us.
      Mr. Roger Evans: The right hon. Gentleman began by making the extravagant observation that everybody in a democratic society has a right to join a trade union. If he will pledge a future Labour Government—if ever such a fantastic creature came to office—to permitting trade unions in the armed services of this country, he should clearly say so. When I put it to him that that was perhaps a little embarrassing, or even a little controversial, he sidestepped the question by saying this was a case of taking away existing rights. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has some Tory respect for existing rights. That is a reactionary viewpoint but at least one that I respect.
      Convention 87, to which a Labour Government signed up, specifically excludes the armed services from its ambit. In most countries, organisations engaged in highly confidential matters— [Interruption.] I will happily give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
      Dr. Cunningham: I will try to shorten the hon. Gentleman's bogus argument. When people enlist in the armed forces, they do so as volunteers, and they know in advance that the right to union membership does not apply to them.
      Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman should try arguing that in France, which has conscription; or in any country where there is conscription. The right hon. Gentleman makes an utterly spurious point. In most countries, an organisation of the type of GCHQ is, rightly and properly, run by the armed services. The fact that it is historically not so in this country in modern times is an accident.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman should investigate the matter a little further. Different categories of people work for the state. Those who work for MI6, for example, are Crown servants—and as such are precluded from joining trade unions. People who join the armed forces know that they are not allowed to join trade unions. The ILO convention specifically acknowledges that provision. Other countries in Europe, such as Holland and France, may allow trade unionists in their armed forces. That is their business and has nothing to do with the argument.
      Mr. Evans: I was making the point that a secret intelligence-gathering by interception operation of the type of GCHQ is often run by the armed services in other countries, because such an operation is of fundamental national importance.
      Another Labour Government signed up in 1978 to ILO convention 151. Perhaps realising that armed forces and police was too narrow an exemption, it added workers engaged in work of a highly confidential nature. It has always been the Government's case that they are not in breach of those two conventions taken together. At committee and conference level, the ILO has been critical, but it has not appointed a commission of inquiry or taken
      254
      the British Government to the International Court of Justice, which ultimately would be able to rule on whether there has been a breach of the convention.
      Mr. Rogers: Again, the hon. Gentleman has shown appalling ignorance. The ILO did not proceed to take action against the United Kingdom because the British members gave an assurance that they would reconsider the issue. That happened last year. There will be a report again this year because of the way in which the matter was dismissed.
      Mr. Evans: More huff and puff by those who wish to create a protest.
      The campaign that has been mounted by Opposition Members is wholly without merit. It is an unconvincing argument to liken to the Tolpuddle martyrs the 14 who refused the offers made to them. It is being suggested that the 14 are victims of a democratic process going wrong. In fact, they were paid generous compensation by the Government. The background suggests that there is something extremely odd about the campaign of protest that has been mounted.
      If certificates were signed by the Secretary of State under employment protection legislation—the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) did not take this point on board—that would implement the arrangements that the Government have proposed, and were that power to be removed, there would be the possibility of industrial tribunals having jurisdiction to try cases arising out of employment arrangements. That is quite apart from any question of trade union organisation leading to the unacceptable disruption that took place from 1979 to 1981. Anyone who has had any connection with the process of industrial tribunals will be well aware that large amounts of information can be requested properly—it is extremely difficult to stop it being produced by means of public interest immunity certificates—and the entire operation of an organisation can be examined in public.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman able to cite any industrial tribunal hearing during which the chairman and members of the tribunal rejected an argument founded on national security?
      Mr. Evans: I have no doubt that it would be argued powerfully that it was not an issue of national security. That would be the applicant's case. He would argue that he had been unfairly treated for a host of reasons, including the decisions of his superiors and the processes and procedures within the organisation. As a result, everything would be laid bare for the public to see. That would be wrong.
      This is an issue of public duties, not of human rights, that bear on those who serve their country in GCHQ extremely well. They should not be allowed to behave in the way in which trade unionists in GCHQ conducted themselves from 1979 to 1981. The Government were driven to do what they did by the needs of the public and the interests of the Government and the state. The argument mounted by Opposition Members is complete nonsense.
      Mr. Rogers: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get his facts right. The industrial disruption to which he refers took place in 1981. The arbitrary reaction, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said,

      255
      took place in 1984. If the disruption was such a bad thing in 1981, why did the Government wait three years before introducing the banning of trade unions at GCHQ?
      Mr. Evans: That was the result of the squawks of protest that Opposition Members managed bogusly to produce. What happened between 1979 and 1981 was unacceptable and remains unacceptable. The clause should be resisted.
      Mr. Winnick: There is a basic conflict between Labour Members and Conservative Members. It is unfortunate—I think that my assertion will be proved right—that no Conservative Member will today support the lifting of the ban on trade union organisation at GCHQ. We question the democratic credentials of Tory Members time and time again, and their reaction to this particular issue demonstrates the criticism that we make of them.
      Unfortunately, there are far too many Members—certainly this is the position on the Conservative Benches —who do not understand human rights issues. They did not understand human rights issues in South Africa during the long horror of apartheid in that country. Here at home they seem not to understand the basic right of individuals to belong to a trade union at their place of employment.
      Until the ban in 1984 the Government had no difficulty with the issue. I know that Conservative Members and the Minister will refer to industrial action, but one thing is certain—and I think that the records will bear this out: no Minister came to the House and complained about what was happening at GCHQ. I agree that the Government were not happy with the industrial action that took place in the early 1980s, but we were not prepared for the statement in the House on 25 January 1984 by the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Howe, announcing that there would be a ban on all trade unions at GCHQ.
      4.15 pm
      I said in an intervention during the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland that one pays tribute to the 14 who refused to sign. Can one imagine the amount of pressure that there must have been on all employees at GCHQ? I do not criticise those employees—the majority —who signed. They obviously wanted to continue to work. No doubt they took the view that it would have been extremely difficult to find alternative work. Like other people throughout the country, they had commitments. No matter how much they would have liked to have stuck with their trade union membership, in the prevailing circumstances they had no alternative. They did not want a transfer. They wanted to continue the work in which they were experts, so they signed. They were given a certain amount of time to sign the document and some money. If they belonged to a trade union, they had to sign a document giving up that right. It is disgraceful that in our democracy citizens should be forced into the dilemma of whether to stick by their principles or by their jobs.
      Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, I pay tribute to the 14 who refused to sign. They are loyal citizens, as loyal as anyone in the House or outside. They have only the interests of the country at heart. All were extremely skilled in their job. Some were experts and recognised as such. One was an expert in the Chinese language and, from 1984, played a leading role in the campaign for the lifting of the ban.
      256
      Some countries have remained under dictatorship, but others have not. In the former communist regimes, there were people like Dr. Sakharov, who reached a point where he could no longer serve the regime because he knew that it was unjust. I may be wrong—one cannot, of course, be certain about such matters—but had those 14 GCHQ workers lived in the Soviet Union, had they been Russians or Soviets, they would have stood out. The matters of principle and justice would have been similar to those they were facing, although the circumstances were very different there. They could not sign the document and allow themselves to be intimidated, even if it cost them their jobs. That is why we pay tribute to those 14.
      Conservatives Members may sneer about such people, but we remember those in the last century, such us the Tolpuddle martyrs, who were persecuted and who stood by their principles. I would guess that in years to come the 14 will be seen in the same light. Certainly, I hope that they will live long enough to see their campaign succeed. Indeed, I hope that it will be only two or three years before that happens. A Labour Government will lift the ban.
      My right and learned hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition reaffirmed Labour's commitment and made our position clear on the 10th anniversary of the ban when he spoke at Cheltenham. He said that one of the first actions of a Labour Government would be to lift that ban. I have not the slightest doubt that that pledge will be kept. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) wanted to intervene, but he does not wish to do so.
      When the ban was announced Ministers may have felt that there would be some commotion in the House and at GCHQ—and in the trade union movement—but that it would die down within two or three years. It has not died down, however. On the 10th anniversary of the ban there was the demonstration at Cheltenham. I note that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is either nodding or shaking his head—I am not sure which.
      One thing is certain: no one can claim that the issue has gone away. It will not go away until victory has been secured. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) tried to play down the position of the International Labour Organisation. He tried to give the impression that this was not a matter of great significance. But that is not the view of the ILO, which has clearly said that the British Government seem to be in breach of convention 87.
      Time and again in the past 10 years there have been attempts in the ILO to avoid coming to a conclusion on this matter, in the hope that an agreement can be reached between the British Government and the trade unions. Indeed, a meeting took place last December. The unions went to the meeting at Downing street in the hope of reaching an agreement. They were flexible; they were willing to negotiate an agreement that would involve no striking at GCHQ. Even if Conservative Members are right to say that a ban was necessary because of the risk of industrial action—I do not accept that—the unions were saying that they were willing to reach an agreement on union recognition with no industrial action to be taken at GCHQ.
      The Government seem to have said that this is not good enough. The Government, I understand, insisted that when unions sign such agreements they must also agree to ban industrial action everywhere by their members. No union could possibly agree to those terms; they would be a denial of basic democratic and union rights.

      257
      The Government were clearly not willing to come to an agreement, therefore. The only reason why the Secretary of State for Employment—and previous Secretaries of State —has given the impression that there could ever be an agreement is to prevent the ILO reaching a conclusion on convention 87.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: It would help me if the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether he thinks that the industrial action taken in 1979 was justified. I am not sure of his stance on that.
      Mr. Winnick: It is not for me to pass judgment on whether industrial action is right or wrong. Neither I nor other hon. Members are asked for their opinions on such matters. It is not my job to pass judgment. If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about industrial action at GCHQ, and not just using it as an excuse for a continued ban, the remedy is clear—the unions have offered the sort of agreement that I have described.
      Mr. Garnier: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can see the distinction between the principle that he supports and the question that I have asked him. Does he believe that the industrial action, taken in 1979 before there was any question of a ban, was justified or not? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has in his time supported a number of cases of industrial action, such as the miners' strike, and has claimed that they were justified or otherwise. I am asking for a simple answer, to see how it informs the principle.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That was an excessively long intervention.
      Mr. Winnick: I will not take lectures from Conservative Members who have never defended trade union rights and who, moreover, sometimes refuse to recognise trade unions in the companies that they run. A Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), sometimes known as "the heavy", was quoted in my local newspaper—his constituency and mine are not far apart—as having said that he would rather see his factory closed down than recognise trade unions. We need no lectures about trade unions from Conservative Members.
      Mr. Rogers: I know that my hon. Friend would not want to pass judgment on anyone taking industrial action. As he has said, it is not his business to do so. I am sure, however, that he would want to tell the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that the action took place as a result of the arbitrary suspension of the pay scheme that was in operation for civil servants. The Government say that the number of man days lost was 10,000. In fact, with 7,000 people working at the establishment, it was just over one. In addition, as only 10 per cent. of GCHQ's business is data collection, there was virtually no loss of any material.
      Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. People can rest assured that the industrial action was not taken in jest. Trade unions do not take such action in jest. In this case they had good reason to take the action that they took, as has been explained by my hon. Friend.
      I want to talk about what happened after the industrial action.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that on 14 April 1981 the then Secretary of State for Defence asserted that the dispute had not affected operational efficiency or capability in any area?
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. This remark has been quoted previously. The fact is that work at GCHQ continued despite the industrial action. The real test is what happened in 1982, the year after the action. I refer to the Falklands war. Of course, that conflict could have been avoided if the Government had not sent to the junta political signals giving the impression that the Falklands were not important to Britain. At the time of the war— a year after the industrial action— GCHQ fulfilled its duties. Hon. Members do not have to take just my word—
      Mr. Garnier rose—
      Mr. Winnick: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. No doubt he will make his own remarks in due course.
      When the Falklands war had ended, Sir Brian Tovey, the then director of GCHQ, sent a message to every employee. This occurred a year after the industrial action which, we are told, caused such disruption that GCHQ could not carry out its duties and which, it is asserted, made necessary the ban that occurred three years after the action. Sir Brian Tovey's message said:
      "High level praise. There can be no doubt that this praise has been well deserved. It has been earned by hard and dedicated work by you as individuals."
      The great majority of those individuals were trade unionists. A year after the industrial action no Conservative Member—not even the Minister—would have had the effrontery to suggest that the excellent work done by GCHQ during the war was in any way undermined or hampered by trade union membership. No Minister could say anything of the kind and be telling the truth.
      Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman has been most courteous in giving way to me, and I shall not interrupt him again. Before leaving the Chamber to attend a meeting of the Select Committee on Home Affairs I invite him to tell us whether he interprets the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) as amounting to justification of the strike that took place in 1979?
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman seems to be obsessed with industrial action. I doubt whether, in his entire life, he has supported any action by trade unions in defence of their members' jobs. My hon. Friend gave the reason for the action. It is not for me, as a Labour Member of Parliament, to pass judgment, and I do not intend to do so.
      If, as I hope, the International Labour Organisation comes to the conclusion that the British Government are in breach of convention 87 it should be noted that no other democracy has been so reprimanded. This would be the first time for any democratic country to be found to be in breach of convention 87. What sort of regimes have been reprimanded for breaches of convention 87? They include El Salvador, Brazil and other dictatorial and tyrannical countries. It will not improve Britain's reputation to be linked to such regimes if the ILO concludes that we have breached that convention.
      4.30 pm
      I began by saying that a fundamental right is at issue. What divides the two sides of the House is whether people have the right to belong to a trade union. I believe that, in a democracy, people at their place of employment have such a right. Ten years ago, that right was taken away without any justification. I am clear in my mind that the continuing campaign, together with what we are saying today, is fully justified. Of course, the Minister will not budge today. In Committee, there was not even the slightest sign that the Government would budge.
      Following a meeting at Downing street last December, the general secretary of the TUC wrote to the ILO explaining what was happening and asking it to proceed accordingly. I hope that it will do so. Unfortunately, our new clause will be lost today, but in the end victory will be ours. No matter how many defeats we suffer now, the time will shortly come—perhaps in two or three years—when there will be another Government who will respect human rights and one of whose first actions will be to ensure that the right that was taken away 10 years ago is restored as quickly as possible.
      Sir Peter Emery: I had not intended to speak, but there appears to be an accusation that Conservative Members are against trade unions and I do not believe that to be true. Indeed, if trade unions did not exist, the Conservative party would have had to invent them. I hold a trade union record that no other hon. Member has ever achieved: I am the only person who, as
      a rank-and-file member of a trade union, defeated a member of his own executive to win a seat in this place. I achieved that by defeating Mr. Ian Mikardo in Reading in 1959—so my views about trade unions should not come under any attack.
      We need to think seriously about whether it is correct to consider the employees of GCHQ in the same terms as we consider the military. That is the basis of the argument and it is the Government's view that they should be put in the same category. I understand the Opposition's argument that they should be treated separately. One of the dangers of being somewhat independent is that one can often appreciate the arguments on both sides. At this moment, however, the question is which of the arguments is more important to the security of this country.
      Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The right hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members here today, did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee. I want to put to him a question that was put to the Minister in Committee. If membership of a trade union at GCHQ is a threat to our national security, how does the right hon. Gentleman view the current practice of market testing—for example, for the maintenance of RAF strike aircraft, which could mean private companies maintaining the engines? Would the same argument—that membership of a trade union is inimical to the interests of national security—apply to the private companies?
      Sir Peter Emery: The straight answer to that is no and I shall therefore press on.
      I spoke on Second Reading and, although I was not on the Committee, I followed its debates in Hansard. The Prime Minister's statement of 13 January is of the greatest importance in considering these questions. My right hon. Friend said:
      260
      "Against that background, however, I indicated that the Government were prepared to enable the Government Communications Staff Federation, the registered trade union for GCHQ staff, to affiliate to the Council of Civil Service Unions, subject to conditions to guarantee its continuing independence. This would have allowed the staff of GCHQ to be represented in discussions between the Government and the unions on matters affecting the civil service generally in a way in which they are not at present."—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 255.]
      Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm whether that offer remains?
      4.30pm
      Mr. David Davis indicated assent.
      Sir Peter Emery: I see from his nod that it does, and that is important in the balance of the matter. That is a long way from emotive suggestions to the effect that the 14 people were similar to Mr. Sakharov in Russia. I have been to Gorky and seen what Mr. Sakharov had to go through, and there is no comparison. It is important that the House should not debate important matters with such a division of political views. I believe that there is not an absolute division of political views. I believe honestly that both sides want to see what is best for the defence of the country. I do not doubt that at all, and I would not suggest that those on the Opposition Front Bench wanted otherwise. It seems to me that it comes down to a difference of opinion, and how that difference is best summed up.
      Mr. Winnick: Let there be no misunderstanding. I made a comparison with the case of the late Dr. Sakharov, but I accepted when I spoke—at least, I hope I did and I will check my remarks—that the circumstances were very different. I was not attempting to compare like with like. I tried to compare—I believe I was right in doing so—the case of Dr. Sakharov, who, under dictatorship conditions, stood by his principles, with that of the 14 who, in a democracy, were willing to sacrifice their jobs because they, too, believed in basic human rights and in justice. I see some likeness between the two cases.
      Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman was clearly not making the sort of suggestions that I thought might have been drawn from his remarks; it is good to have that cleared up.
      I return to the question that I put originally: should we treat the employees at GCHQ in the same way as we treat those who are working in the defence and military forces of this country? The Government take the view that we should. I happen to believe—certainly at this moment—that that is the right decision. I urge those who are working at GCHQ to take up the offer made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which is still open; they could then make specific representations in a normal civil service fashion. I believe that, if that were to happen, the House ought to be satisfied.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). He is not here this afternoon as he unfortunately had to attend the funeral of a friend, but he will join us later. It is right to pay tribute to his hard work—both as a councillor in Cheltenham and latterly as the Member of Parliament representing that constituency—on behalf of those at

      261
      GCHQ who lost their jobs as a result of the struggle for trade union membership, one of whom is now a Liberal Democrat councillor on the local district council.
      John Cook was a communications and cipher operator at GCHQ and is, perhaps, a good talisman for what has occurred there and for what ought to occur in the future. He is one of the 14, and he could hardly be criticised for any suggestion of disloyalty to his country. John Cook was positively vetted and, despite the dispute over trade union membership, has remained loyal to his oath of secrecy, as have all the 14. His loyalty goes without question, as does that of the other 13.
      John Cook was a communications and cipher operator on Ascension island during the Falklands war. He worked hard in difficult conditions and with extreme effect, so one understands, while he was there. His loyalty was judged afterwards when he was invited to Buckingham palace to be honoured for his work, yet he is one of the 14 people who lost their jobs because it was thought to be against the national interest that they should be allowed to be members of a trade union.
      What Mr. Cook and his colleagues proposed was not some outrageous new theory. They were not claiming some new right. They were not relying on some newly ratified convention from which the Government might have wished to derogate when it was created. Mr. Cook was relying on an established right which he had exercised fairly throughout his period at GCHQ.
      Yes, there was an industrial dispute at GCHQ, but it was a lawful one. I do not think that it has ever been suggested that there was any suspicion of illegality about the dispute or the way in which it was conducted. All lawful trade disputes militate against someone's interest. That is in the nature of trade disputes, but they remain lawful in Britain, and rightly so, within certain limits.
      Successive Governments had plenty of time to react to the dispute and to say that it redounded in a way which was contrary to the national interest and should be the direct cause of removing the right to trade union membership. However, that did not happen. It was about five years later that the Government decided to abolish—
      Mr. Rogers: Three years later.
      Mr. Carlile: I am sorry, three years later. It was about three years later that the Government decided to abolish trade union membership at GCHQ. That could hardly be described as a reaction. It seems to me that, in this instance, the Government are simply tilting at windmills—but they are invisible windmills. It is not sufficient to argue that they suddenly discovered that GCHQ should be treated in the same way as the military—with great respect to the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). For years —indeed, throughout most of the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished and long membership of the House—the GCHQ work force were members of trade unions without ill effect.
      Sir Peter Emery: I do not mean to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman's flow, but there is a difference between the time before 10,000 hours of work were lost at GCHQ and the time after it. Until that moment, trade union membership was never questioned but after that moment questions were raised. That was the watershed.
      Mr. Carlile: I do not understand that point. If one analyses the time lost in the context of the whole work force of GCHQ, a very small number—a handful—of man years were lost. And it was always a lawful trade dispute.
      Dr. John Cunningham: I want to help and support the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes. In the period to which the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) referred, almost 5 million working days were lost at GCHQ. Only 0.2 per cent. of them were lost during the dispute. Far more time was lost because people were absent ill and certainly because at weekends they were not there at all.
      Mr. Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman makes his point well. He underlines my point that what occurred was a perfectly normal lawful trade dispute. Nor should we forget that the Intelligence Services Bill deals with the position as it is in 1994. Much has changed in the trade union world since 1978. I suspect that even the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would admit that to be true, albeit reluctantly. I see that he shrugs his shoulders at that proposition.
      Dr. John Cunningham: I am trying not to be drawn into it.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Carlile: The fact is that much has changed. We are considering the position in 1994. There have been the highest level negotiations between those who wish to be trade unionists at GCHQ, the trade unions and the Government. Undertakings have been given—I have not heard the Minister suggest that they were dishonourably given—that GCHQ would be able to function securely, as it always has in the past, and that there would not be disruption at GCHQ through industrial action. I do not know what more the Government can ask. I really do not know at what windmill the Government are tilting. What are they afraid of?
      We have heard two cogent speeches from Conservative Back-Bench Members, but neither of them identified a single item that could cause the Government even so much as concern if trade union membership were permitted at GCHQ.
      The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) may be right. There may be no technical breach of the International Labour Organisation conventions, but that has not yet been determined, nor is it the issue. The issue is the principle whether it is right that workpeople who were more loyal to this country than most workpeople are ever asked to be should have been removed from their job, their rights and their livelihood because the Government did not like the notion of having trade unions at GCHQ.
      Mr. Rogers: With all due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the workers who participated in industrial action at GCHQ were not disloyal in any way. It is important to emphasise that national security was never put at risk and that at GCHQ—this is one of the things that are not always obvious, certainly to Conservative Members, who never even try to find out—only 10 per cent. of the work force is involved in data collection. When the industrial action took place, none of the members involved in strategic data collection went on strike. The fundamental process of GCHQ continued right through that one-day industrial action.
      Mr. Carlile: I have made the point twice that none of the workers at GCHQ was disloyal. Indeed, I think that I am right in saying that it has never been claimed that a single worker at GCHQ was disloyal. [Interruption.] The Government have never claimed with an iota of evidence to show any disloyalty or any effect of any alleged disloyalty.
      I would find the arguments of the hon. Member for Monmouth more convincing if there were some evidence of a single incident of disloyalty that affected the interests of this country in any significant way. Perhaps I can best close my remarks by referring to the words of the then Secretary of State for Defence, now Sir John Nott. One notes that he has not been given the ermine shawl—perhaps because he has been a little too frank in expressing his views about the performance of the Government of which he was a member. He said that the dispute at GCHQ had not
      "in any way affected operational capability in any area."— [Official Report, 14 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 136.]
      If that was true—
      Mr. French: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Carlile: No. I have almost finished. If Mr. Nott was stating the facts accurately to the House, why are the Government spending so much time raking over the coals of a lawful industrial dispute that took place about 15 years ago?
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Trade union rights at GCHQ have been a major cause celebre which has rattled down the 10 years since the withdrawal of trade union recognition. The issue has dominated debates on the Bill in both Chambers of the Palace of Westminster and new clause 1 shows the Opposition's strength of feeling here as well as in another place.
      I understand the grievance that informs the argument. Clearly if any one of us had joined a trade union in the knowledge that membership was acceptable, it would seem to be part of an acquired right, we would think nothing of it and would therefore feel aggrieved if the right were withdrawn. I understand and respect that feeling of grievance, but I must refer to the basic principle.
      The House understands that I have also run up against the Government, but they are accountable to an electorate and their perception of the defence of the nation gives them the right to make arrangements for those whom they employ. I am mindful of that right because when I read the Committee Hansard reports I could not see a distinction as regards national security. Hon. Members across the Chamber rightly accept that GCHQ is an integral part of our national defence or early warning system. It has been argued that it is crucial and that the information that it delivers is important to the nation. We say the same of our armed forces and accept that it is intolerable that they should strike, even for one day, and that it might hinder our capability—not last time, but it might next time. Governments must look forward as well as refer back.
      Dr. John Cunningham: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not understand his argument. He says that Governments are entitled to take such decisions. The same Government have a Joint Intelligence Committee, which handles the most precious secrets of the nation. Its members are members of a trade union. I guess
      264
      that they belong to the First Division Association, which is affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. Their membership conflicts with the hon. Gentleman's argument.
      Mr. Shepherd: That is why I approached the subject fairly diffidently. Until 1984, the same judgment applied to GCHQ. I understand the matter of principle that the Opposition have identified, which dominated the thrust of the attack on the Bill—attack is probably the wrong word. However, when the Government identify what they believe to be the essential interest for defence, although the right hon. Gentleman and I might disagree with the particular, the Government have a right to act. They must justify their actions to the Chamber and to the country.
      I must contradict the new clause. I recognise that, where national security or organisations such as the Army are concerned—as the right hon. Gentleman said, there is a seeming contradiction—and the Government cites that, for example, GCHQ should not have the benefit of trade unions, but should work through staff organisations, that is a right of Government.
      The Opposition are right to challenge the decision if they feel strongly about it. They have made it clear that if they form a Government they will restore the right. That is a respectable argument. I am saying that both arguments are respectable. However, the judgment falls to the Government and I will back them on it because I think that it is acceptable. It is the Government's perception that, although 10,000 hours lost in one day is not significant, they cannot be in that position again and they have made arrangements to that effect.
      Mr. Winnick: If we do not carry the hon. Gentleman with us on the issue of civil liberties, we can reasonably assume that no other Conservative Member will vote with us in the Lobby. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the Government should give strong and compelling reasons for taking away a basic right?
      All those employees were highly praised for their role in the Falklands campaign in 1982 and, furthermore, no one has argued that their capabilities were not at full strength during the cold war when they were trade union members. For the hon. Gentleman to prove his case he would have to say that the Government argued that GCHQ's capabilities had been undermined, but no such argument has been put forward.
      Mr. Shepherd: I guess that I implicitly accepted that point. The resurrection of details of GCHQ's history obviously informs our views on the subject. I accept that the Opposition take an entirely different standpoint. I reiterate that the Opposition Front-Bench team have stated that, when they have the opportunity of being in government, they will restore the right.
      I am merely arguing that, as a matter of principle, each Government responsible for national security must make decisions and judgments about it. The strike might not have had consequences for national security at the time, but we must all look forward and decide how we would meet such a contingency in the future. The trade union's offer of a no-strike bargain was a subsequent undertaking.
      The Government made a judgment in 1984 and it is no secret that I was not happy with it. I may have taken a different judgment, but that is not the point. The nation commissions the Government to look after our national security and accepts that GCHQ is an integral part of it. The Government can therefore argue, and feel strongly

      265
      justified in doing so, that it is part of the country's defence forces and as such should be inhibited from forming unions and striking.
      Mr. Rogers: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that the Government have the right to override the international conventions and treaties that they have subscribed to? If he is saying that they can do so willy-nilly, it is a pretty awful state of affairs. The Government have subscribed to conventions laid down by the International Labour Organisation, which is an arm of the United Nations. We cannot subscribe to an international treaty that acknowledges that people have a right to join an organisation of their choosing and then decide to override it. If that is the case, why do not the Government withdraw from those international agreements? After all, the ILO was set up to safeguard workers' rights. It was originally thought that it would be necessary only in third-world countries, but that is just about the level that we are getting to in this country under this Government.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am trying to illustrate the distinction of principle. I notice that the Opposition do not suggest for one moment that when they come into office they will allow the armed forces to have the right to join a trade union.
      Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman is telling the House that he is trying to make a distinction of principle. May I ask him the question that I asked the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)? Is he saying that he regards members of GCHQ as members of the military establishment and in a separate category in terms of national security and membership of trade unions? How does he square that view with the fact that employees of a private firm who might be maintaining aircraft engines —I gave the example of bomber command—might be union members? Is it not contradictory to say, as the right hon. Member said, that they can belong to a union when employees at GCHQ cannot because their membership somehow affects our national security? Does not the hon. Gentleman see the inconsistency in his argument?
      Mr. Shepherd: Yes, but life is full of inconsistencies. That is not meant to be a glib response. The Government directly employ a huge establishment at GCHQ who are dedicated, as hon. Members on both sides of the House accept, to the defence of our nation. I attended the Standing Committee and carefully read the reports. I know that that is accepted and common ground.
      I am merely saying that there is a distinction of principle and that the Government adopted a reasonable position. I am not saying that it is unreasonable for the Labour party, which was founded by the trade union movement, to stand staunchly by the right of those 13 GCHQ employees. That is perfectly honourable. I understand why a future Government might take an alternative or a contrary view. That is the distinction that I am acknowledging. I do not think that it is the major issue in the Intelligence Services Bill; that is the essence of my remarks.
      Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman then follow the logic of his argument and ask the Government to ban trade unions in atomic weapons establishments, for instance? Due to the contractorisation of atomic weapons establishments to private companies, civil servants are involved only in monitoring certain situations and the
      266
      general work force are now not Government servants. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government could, in the interests of national security, ban trade unions in that industry?
      5 pm
      Mr. Shepherd: We are going round in a circle. I am saying that the Government of the day—whether Labour or Conservative—have a right to determine which matters affect directly the national security of the nation and they stand accountable to the electorate and to the House. That Governments may have different views about different organisations at different times is wholly appropriate and consistent with the argument that I am mounting.
      However, I find it slightly curious that this is the dominating debate about the Intelligence Services Bill which is linked to the security services legislation. I accept that it is a major cause celebre, but it is not the essence of the debate about the Bill.
      Mr. Kilfoyle: Is not the whole purpose of the intelligence service to protect the very liberties which are being undermined in the case of those people who, under an international convention, have an established right to belong to a trade union at Government communications headquarters? What is the point of having an intelligence service if those liberties are not protected in this of all places?
      Mr. Shepherd: That is a powerful argument and I treat it with respect. That is why I think that the remit is very important. That is why I think that national security, in definition, is very important and why I think that the Committee of parliamentarians and its remit is important. That is why I think that the tribunal is important. I have lots of views about the Bill, but I do not see this as the crucial issue in it.
      I understand the passion that is expressed about the matter. I think that it is legitimate and fair. But I also think that the counter view is legitimate and fair. If Opposition Members wish, they may implement recognition of trade unions at GCHQ when they come to government. I think that I have made my point in my small contribution to the debate.
      Mr. Stuart Randall: I am one of those who believe that we must always maintain the security of our nation. We debated the main security services—the intelligence service, Government communications headquarters and the military—during the Second Reading of the Bill. We have to make sure that they work well.
      When I was 15 years old I joined the shipyard at Devonport and I have been a member of a trade union ever since. Frankly, I cannot understand what Conservative Members are going on about. I cannot see any conflict whatsoever regarding national security and membership of trade unions. I say to the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) that I do not think that we can bridge the gap between us on this issue.
      The Government must take action to resolve the problem with the rights of staff at GCHQ. They should be able to become members of a union of their choice which can be regarded as being an Independent union. They are the key points of convention 87: the ability to choose which union to join and the recognition of a union as being independent.

      267
      The Government could be censured by the International Labour Organisation. The ILO is scheduled to meet again in the autumn and I would be ashamed if it were to censure this country. The censure could take the form of awarding a "special paragraph". That is very serious as it is the ILO's highest form of censure. In practice, it would mean that Britain would be seen to be in breach of an ILO convention—in this case, convention 87, which deals with the rights of individuals to be members of trade unions of their choice. The ILO is an international organisation of great repute and, in my view, it would be very damaging to Britain's interests if we were seen to disregard or belittle in any way the rulings or advocacy of that organisation.
      The awarding of a special paragraph is used very rarely by the ILO. Therefore, when it is used we can assume that the ILO views the breaching of the convention very seriously. In the past, special paragraphs have been issued over such violations as slavery in the Sudan, forced labour in Brazil and the murder of trade unionists in El Salvador. If the ILO censures us in that way, Britain will be seen as ignoring human rights. Additionally, it will be seen as flouting an important international convention to which it is a signatory.
      What therefore is the current position? A censure in the form of the special paragraph was proposed by the ILO in 1992, but it was withdrawn when the Government declared their intention to reach a solution that was satisfactory to all parties. They said that they hoped for
      "a substantive, frank and constructive dialogue carried out in good faith."
      The Government agreed to undertake such dialogue following the statement in 1992 by an important ILO committee. It said three things: first, the committee was unanimous about the need for a renewal of dialogue between the Government and trade unions; secondly, it deplored the fact that it was unable to note any tangible progress on the question of the breach of convention 87, or even a resumption of discussions; and, thirdly, it urged the Government to resume in the very near future
      "constructive discussions calculated to lead, through genuine dialogue, to a compromise acceptable to both sides."
      The Government have agreed to create such a compromise. But what are they doing now? In 1992 they said that they would take action to resolve the problem—they are committed to doing that. In January, in a parliamentary answer, the Prime Minister said that the overriding concern was the maintenance of the continuing operation of GCHQ —we all agree with that—in order to protect national security.
      However, there is no evidence that the industrial action taken between 1979 and 1981 damaged national security. We have already heard the quotes from Sir John Nott, so I will not repeat them. But, essentially, no operational activity was affected in any area during the dispute. I estimate that about 15 people per year did not work during the period. If one calculates that there are 300 working days a year, only a tiny number of people were involved in industrial action.
      In this context, the Prime Minister said that the Government Communications Staff Federation—the registered union. for GCHQ staff—should become affiliated with the Council of Civil Service Unions. The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) also referred to that suggestion in his speech. It was rejected by the trade
      268
      unions for one key reason—it was absolutely irrelevant because, even if it were regarded as a solution, convention 87 would still be violated. There was no way in which the trade unions could accept that offer. The Prime Minister went on to say that there were no plans at that time to hold further meetings.
      What the Government are doing—seemingly via the office of the Lord Chancellor—is creating all sorts of legal arguments. They are wriggling by saying that convention 87 cannot be applied directly to the GCHQ case and that it is necessary to consider the words of convention 152. It is clear that they are raking in all sorts of legal arguments. I do not believe that such arguing and that kind of court stuff will enhance the esteem of Britain.
      I shall ask the Minister three questions. First, do the Government fully support the principles laid down in convention 87? It is rumoured that the Government might even withdraw from the ILO. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can confirm whether that is true. Does he agree that people should be free to choose to which union they want to belong and that those unions can be independent? I should like to know the Government's thinking on that.
      Secondly, will the Minister tell the House exactly under what circumstances the Government could allow staff at GCHQ to join independent unions of their choice? I am sure that the House will wait to hear the Minister's replies because we need some help from the Government to see if we can break the logjam.
      Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will admit that progress is slow. Is it the Government's intention to put forward some proposals to form the basis for constructive dialogue?
      I should like the answers to those three simple little questions, because I am one of those people who genuinely believes that the argument about trade union membership was a political mistake created a number of years ago. It has nothing to do with national security and it is completely fallacious to rake in such an argument. What we are talking about has nothing to do with the security services; we are talking about basic individual rights. For that reason I support the new clause.
      I see no conflict between trade union membership and national security. I have seen no evidence and heard nothing today to suggest that being a member of a trade union affects national security. That is a load of old rubbish. The mistake was made by Lord Howe, who was probably being pushed at the time by a certain lady. The Government now cannot dig themselves out of the great hole into which they have got themselves.
      One thing is clear: the ILO will consider the matter again this autumn and it will be up for consideration at next year's conference. We therefore have a year in which to sort the whole thing out. I ask the Government to get stuck in, have some discussions and come up with a sensible solution to the problem. We can then put it to bed once and for all.
      Will the Minister please answer my three questions?
      Mr. French: There is a striking contrast between the posture adopted by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr Cunningham), who opened the debate—it was reinforced by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall)—and the views held by the current employees at GCHQ. Many of them are my constituents;

      269
      they live in Gloucester and work at GCHQ in Cheltenham. Very few of those employees have any complaints about the prevailing situation at GCHQ.
      The attitude of the Labour party, and, to an extent, that of the Liberal party, is yet another example of an attempt to whip up this issue into a major problem, some years after it has ceased to be a major problem locally. That was well illustrated by the recent demonstration on the 10th anniversary of the trade union ban. Several Opposition Members have referred to that demonstration and any of them who witnessed it would have noticed two things. First, the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), was at its head and spoke to the assembled multitude. Secondly, if those witnesses had looked more carefully, however, they would have noted that the number of local people and, particularly, the number of local employees of GCHQ who attended the demonstration was very small.
      5.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will no doubt repeat the point that he made in Committee that those employees were not at the demonstration because, as they are not permitted to be members of a trade union, they should not have been there. I cannot see that membership of a trade union would or should have prevented them from expressing their views by taking part in that demonstration. I must emphasise, however, that the majority of people who attended that demonstration were drafted in from other parts of the country. Some were drafted in at the behest of certain members of the Labour party, who wished to give the impression and convey a national message that GCHQ is still a matter of great concern locally and, therefore, nationally. That was a false message, because it did not represent local views accurately.
      Mr. Rogers: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if he quotes what I said in Committee, he should make use of the relevant column in the Official Report? I do not recall saying what he claimed I said in Committee.
      Mr. French: I regret that I do not have the precise column reference to hand, but if I can find it before the end of the debate, I will quote it to the hon. Gentleman.
      The right hon. Member for Copeland should understand that approximately half of the current employees at GCHQ joined it some time after the ban had come into effect. They joined in the full knowledge of the conditions of service to which they had to agree. Those people are not complaining, because they joined in the full knowledge that they would be unable to join a trade union. That ban has not prevented them from taking up their employment. That fact, too, reveals that there is a yawning gap between views held locally and those expressed by the Opposition today and in Committee. The Opposion are trying to foist their views on the House and the nation.
      Mr. Rogers: For the purpose of the exercise, I accept the argument that the hon. Gentleman has put forward—the wishes of the employees at GCHQ should be paramount. In that case, why would he object to a ballot being held there on whether employees wanted to join a trade union? That could be held according to the law that the Government have prescribed. Why not allow the workers at GCHQ the right to a ballot under the rules and regulations drawn up by the Government?
      Mr. French: As the hon. Gentleman knows, those employees are eligible to join the staff federation, which I shall discuss later. I am arguing that the views of those people, as represented by the Labour party, purporting to express views held locally, are being grossly and seriously distorted. From local knowledge and from constant contact with employees at GCHQ in a local context, I am confident that my argument is sound.
      Several Opposition Members have ridiculed Conservative Members for, they claim, holding the view that trade unions at GCHQ would constitute a threat to security. It very much depends on what one understands by a threat to security. It is not a threat to security in the sense that Conservative Members are speaking about something equivalent to reds under the bed. Anyone who understands the procedures in GCHQ will realise that there is a possibility of a threat to national security.
      Mr. Kilfoyle rose—
      Mr. John McWilliam rose
      Mr. French: Before I am interrupted, perhaps I could be allowed to explain why and how I can substantiate that remark. Then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—to both hon. Gentlemen, if necessary.
      We have heard comments by the Opposition that there never has been any interruption to the data collection. The data collection is a vital part of what GCHQ does, although it performs many other services. The continuity and non-interruption of that data collection is vital. If one is involved, as people are in GCHQ, in gathering a continuous collection of information, which, having been gathered, is subject to code-breaking and interpretation, it becomes clear that an interruption of any type in that data collection can completely destroy the capacity to interpret the rest of the information that is collected.
      If I may give a simple illustration, if data has been collected continuously for seven days but there is then an interruption for as much as seven minutes, that can render the interpretation of the seven days' data difficult, if not impossible or invalid.
      Mr. Kilfoyle: If it is so important to maintain the continuity of the collection and interpretation of data, why was one of the people who were dismissed so summarily as a result of the attitude of the Government towards trade unions at GCHQ the only Chinese technical expert available to GCHQ, and why, subsequently, was the body of expertise that had been built up around that individual allowed to be dissipated? The department was closed. If it was so important to maintain that data, why did the Government act so vindictively?
      Mr. French: I am speaking about the continuity of collection of data. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has fully understood that. I am fairly sure that the task of the gentleman to whom he refers was interpreting data, not collecting it. That is all the difference in the world. Even the best interpreter of data cannot interpret correctly if the collection is not complete.
      Mr. McWilliam: May I tell the hon. Gentleman, as a sponsored member of the National Communications Union, and someone who has worked on national security and defence communications over the years and has never broken the Official Secrets Act 1911, first, that I do not

      271
      know where he gets the basis for the statements that he has just made. Secondly, there has been no break in the continuity of data at GCHQ during the strike.
      Thirdly, people such as me who have worked in national security and defence communications for all these years who are active trade unionists find the attitude of the Government of the previous right hon. Member for Finchley, now Baroness Thatcher, and others towards trade unionists deeply and personally objectionable. The only traitors that we have had, and the ones that have been prosecuted, are not trade unionists, active trade unionists, socialists or members of the Labour party. They have been members of the classes represented by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
      Mr. French: I am not sure that the concluding remarks by the hon. Gentleman have a correct place in the debate.
      Several Opposition Members—the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) has added to that—have argued that there has been no breakdown in the collection of data. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) pointed out earlier that the fact that no harm had been done as a result of any—
      Mr. Thomas Graham rose—
      Mr. French: May I just finish my argument?
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery pointed out to us that no harm had allegedly been done as a result of any interruption, and a reference was made to the remarks allegedly made by the then Defence Secretary, Sir John Nott, quoted recently in debate. The argument that Sir John Nott made at the time was not that there had been no damage done as a result. It was made clear in Committee and made clear by the then Prime Minister, commenting on Sir John Nott's remarks, that he
      "was referring only to military operations"
      and
      "GCHQ did not come under his then Department and does not now."—[Official Report, 31 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 136.]
      Therefore, the comments of Sir John Nott do not support the argument that no damage was done at the time.
      Mr. Graham rose—
      Mr. Rogers rose—
      Mr. French: No; I would like to proceed. I have given way a great deal.
      Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman said that he would give way.
      Mr. French: Yes, but I am coming now to another point that the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has intervened a great many times and, if the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) is not giving way, he must respect that.
      Mr. French: I have given way to a large number of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Rhondda and I want to answer an argument that he made earlier before giving way to yet a further intervention from him.
      272
      The hon. Member for Rhondda and other Opposition Members referred to the fact that, if 10,000 days were lost and there are 6,500 employees, that amounts to only 1½ days per employee. They seem to pray in aid, as an argument, that that is not serious and could not have done very much damage. Continuing my argument about the interruption of data, the loss of 1½ days by one employee is a lot. It is not a little, as the Opposition Members seemed to argue.
      Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. French: No.
      It is a large, serious interruption, and to interpret it as 1½ days instead of the 10,000 days that it was gives a misleading picture.
      Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the point about days. I wonder whether he would tell the House whether 1½ days lost as a result of strike action is better or worse than 1½ weeks lost as a result of illness.
      Mr. French: The fundamental difference is that proper cover can be given when 1½ weeks are lost as a result of illness, to ensure the continuation of the collection of data, for the simple reason that a large proportion of the work force is not ill simultaneously. Those 10,000 lost days represented a significant number of employees—not all, but a significant number—not working at the same time. That is what makes it potentially very damaging.
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is not present, but no doubt he is ably represented by the hon. Lady. He said that it must be accepted that all lawful trade disputes militated against someone's interests. This is why the comparison made earlier between GCHQ employees and members of the military is so important. If we indeed accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition—as his party seems to—the "someone" referred to is, in this instance, the nation's security. That places his argument on a different level from some of the other arguments that may be advanced in an understandable attempt to justify legitimate trade union action.
      5.30 pm
      I said earlier that I wished to deal with the question of the staff federation, whose role has been significantly underestimated in the debate so far. It has been in existence for nearly 10 years, having been established in 1985; in 1988, it was granted sole recognition in regard to the representation of staff. All the local evidence suggests that it represents their interests very satisfactorily.
      Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. French: No; I want to continue with what I am saying.
      The federation is, after all, completely democratic. Its officers and members of the general executive council are elected by secret ballot, and it is a representative organisation. Since 1985 it has been listed as a trade union, with the certification officer, under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. It operates independently, and is elected independently; it fulfils the task that it was set up to fulfil—the representation of employees. The only requirement involved is that it must not be affiliated to a political organisation, and there is nothing so unreasonable

      273
      about that stipulation. Those who do not agree with it must present an argument against it, and there is no sound argument to that effect.
      Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. French: No. I am now making my final point, and I have already given way a great deal.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members seem to be forgetting some of the courtesies of the House. When it is clear that an hon. Member is not going to give way, there is no point in other hon. Members' continually shouting "Will the hon. Gentleman give way?" across the Chamber. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) is clearly not going to give way.
      Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If an hon. Member is making statements that need to be clarified, is it not beneficial for him to give way so that another hon. Member can correct them if necessary?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is nothing to do with the Chair. The winding-up speeches provide a facility for hon. Members who wish to challenge any points made by others.
      Mr. French: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me place on record that I have already given way five or six times, as Hansard will show. I consider that perfectly reasonable, and I do not think that I should be forced to give way further by misconduct on the part of Opposition Members.
      My final point relates to comments made by the right hon. Member for Copeland and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). Both were extremely dismissive about the Prime Minister's efforts. It is obvious from all the available information that the Prime Minister has made strenuous attempts to reach an accommodation with those who want full trade union representation, and that he has done so for a long time.
      First, Sir Robin Butler was authorised to hold discussions to try to find a way out of the problem. A good many discussions were held with national unions in the attempt to find a formula; they began in 1992, and continued in 1993. Meetings were held with the general secretaries of a number of national unions, and various possibilities were considered. The main issue remained the same, however: the national unions' desire for the right to recruit at GCHQ could not be reconciled with the Prime Minister's understandable view that the overriding desire should be for the continuity of data collection. I very much hope that Opposition Members will come to appreciate—given all the available facts—that that is essential to national security.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: I have a good deal in common with the views of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). My wartime experience of contacts with the intelligence services persuaded me that there were wide variations in both the scope and the status of the different sectors, but, like nearly every other hon. Member who is present, I am constrained in what I can say, publicly.
      In present-day Northern Ireland, an increasing number of the functions of the armed forces and the police are being civilianised or privatised. The right hon. Member for
      274
      Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) mentioned civilians employed in sensitive posts in Whitehall. Very few such civilians, either in Whitehall or on our island, have betrayed their trust as servants of the Crown; I believe that the vast majority of trade unionists are loyal to the Crown, and to their country.
      Indeed, that is not in dispute. This is not a question of loyalty; it is not really a question of security in the broader sense, that people cannot be trusted. The problem for my party is the fact that the continuity and smooth working of the establishment at GCHQ are essential.
      It has been said that hours lost through sickness vastly outnumbered those lost through industrial action; but, as has also been said, that is not the point. Even a flu epidemic would not immobilise GCHQ at one fell swoop. Admittedly there might be some reduction in efficiency, a backlog in decoding and a delay in the provision of transcriptions; but there would not be a complete closedown.
      The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—who sometimes agrees with me—assured us that the 10,000 staff days lost during the strike between 1979 and 1981 did not fatally damage operations: he provided written evidence whose validity I accept. The potential for damage remains, however. Presumably a complete closure was avoided in 1981 by the existence of—I hesitate to use the term—strike breakers: not every member of staff joined in. We must ask, however, whether we can be certain that such disunity within the unions will not be repeated.
      I accept the Opposition's assurances that industrial action is a thing of the distant past; I think that they honestly believe that. None the less, I have a niggling reservation. Whatever the cause of the 1981 stoppage—we have not been greatly enlightened about that cause today; there is some mystery about it—some such cause could surface again, with the best will in the world. Next time there could be a complete stoppage. I accept what the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) said, and we all know that an effective stoppage, for even a few hours, could do serious damage which it would be impossible to retrieve.
      Mr. Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is the reason that I was trying to intervene on the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French).
      I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the official Opposition are also concerned about the continuity of collection of sensitive material. The collection of material is carried out electronically; it is not necessary for someone to be present for material to be collected. At the weekend, for example, the number of staff present is very much diminished. Only 10 per cent. of the work force are involved in data collection, so the idea that the collection of material ceases if someone is away is entirely false.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I hope that, in view of the rumoured cuts, the hon. Gentleman is not accidentally going to incite the Treasury to tell us that a much smaller work force would be acceptable at GCHQ. However, I accept some of what he said. If we need all those employees at GCHQ, it disproves his idea that tape recorders can run of their own accord—because of my limited experience of modern technology, I prefer the old pencil stub.
      It has been suggested that new clause 1 could lead to a stoppage in the maintenance of aircraft engines by private

      275
      workmen or a stoppage in a Whitehall Department, even at the Ministry of Defence. I accept that it could mean that an aircraft's take-off was delayed for 48 hours, that a payment order from the Paymaster General might be delayed, or that a cheque might not be issued and tenders not collected by the appropriate date, but the continuity that usually applies in those instances is very different from that at GCHQ where it is absolutely essential. Disruption at GCHQ would cause a great blank in the intelligence picture, which could never be filled from any other source.
      Mr. Peter Mandelson: I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is drawing a distinction between the production of important engines and the work of GCHQ. Is that not precisely why the employee representatives involved offered a no-strike, no-disruption, agreement at GCHQ if their independent union were to be properly recognised again?
      Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful for the civilised way in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question. I should be greatly reassured if I knew what caused the earlier strike, and what guarantee there was that such a strike would not occur again.
      Mr. McWilliam: The earlier strike was caused by management's insistence on imposing unacceptable working hours and conditions on employees of GCHQ. The union said that it was not prepared to accept them, so the management imposed them. That was the cause of the strike, so it seems perverse to blame the trade unions.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I was careful not to blame the unions, because I have a great deal of respect for them. I expect that my party comprises a greater proportion of trade unionists than any other party represented in the House, so I do not discount the unions' attitude.
      It would have been a great help if we had heard the hon. Gentleman's explanation earlier, but it does not entirely remove my worry. I want to be certain that GCHQ will not be put in jeopardy, and that the collection of information will not be interrupted, even for a matter of hours, because of some mysterious cause or even bloody-mindedness on the part of either side in a dispute. It is for that reason, not because I believe that trade unions are disloyal—I hope that I have made that clear—that I must with some reluctance oppose new clause 1.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Allason: GCHQ understandably dominated the Bill's Second Reading and the Committee stage. New clause 1 goes to the heart of the issue of trade union recognition at GCHQ and, of course, of convention 87 of the International Labour Organisation. However, there are two reasons why the new clause should be opposed.
      First, GCHQ is a special case. One must go back not just to its origins as the Government code and cipher school during the second world war but to room 39 of the naval intelligence division during the first world war, when the division achieved disproportionate success in the prosecution of war. I remind the House that, in 1917, it was as a direct result of the decryption of enciphered traffic by room 39 that the Zimmermann telegram brought the
      276
      United States into the war. Room 39 then had a considerable impact on the battle of Dogger Bank and, of course, on the battle of Jutland.
      Thereafter, there was enormous sensitivity about the interception of communications. The official secrets legislation of 1919 spells it out in black and white that the Government were authorised to intercept cables, telephone calls and other communications, so it was something of a surprise that Mr. Chapman Pincher should have made such a fuss about the D-notice affair with Lord Wilson, who was then Prime Minister.
      The Government were perfectly entitled to intercept communications, but there was a great deal of sensitivity about the issue. Of course, the moment that someone becomes aware that his communications are being intercepted, he becomes a great deal more discreet.
      The 1924 White Paper was arguably one of the gravest breaches of security that this country has ever faced—a Prime Minister decided to compromise national security by disclosing details of secret communications that had been passing between the Soviet embassy in London and Moscow. They revealed that the trade agreement that had been made was going to be ignored by the Soviet authorities. There was a short-term advantage for the Government in that, but, in the long term, it had the effect of preventing the operation of GCCS. That is why I mention it now.
      Much has been said to the effect that new clause 1 will not interfere with the continuity of operations at GCHQ.
      That is not the case. It is worth remembering that, in 1938, during the Munich crisis, the Prime Minister's first opportunity to know whether he had achieved any success with Adolf Hitler was when the Deutschland left the Spanish port of Vigo. GCCS was monitoring radio traffic from the Deutschland, a very large German naval vessel.
      The question was whether it was going to turn west and south and continue its intended cruise to South America with a crew of trainees, in which case Mr. Chamberlain could be assured that he had achieved what he wanted from Munich and there was not to be immediate war; or whether the Deutschland turned north and east from Vigo, in which case it would be assumed that the Deutschland, returning to port, was crewed by a crack crew of naval seamen, which meant that war was fairly imminent.
      That is the kind of crucial undertaking never disclosed at the time, or in any history book, but it is a communication between the cryptographers and analysts, and the individuals who advise the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of such sensitive activities. Nobody would underestimate the achievement of GCCS, and thereafter GCHQ, during the second world war at Bletchley park, where a disproportionate contribution was made to the prosecution of the war by about 12,000 people who worked at thatv establishment.
      However, the difficulty that faces us today, which also faced the GCHQ employees in 1984, is the fact that they are in a sense victims of their own success.
      One of the questions raised earlier in the debate was why, when the industrial action took place between 1979 and 1981, the Government took no action until 1984. People ask whether that is evidence of some kind of paranoia, or at least unreasonable behaviour, on the part of the Government and the Prime Minister of the day. However, at no time in the post-war period was GCHQ ever described as or admitted to be a cryptographic organisation. It was never mentioned as an organisation

      277
      devoted to the interception and decryption, or indeed to the security, of communications. It was listed simply as the communications department of the Foreign Office.
      The change between 1981 and 1984 was brought about by the criminal prosecution of Geoffrey Prime. For the first time in the history of GCHQ and GCCS, somebody had compromised security and provided secrets to the Soviets. As a result of his criminal conduct, Geoffrey Prime was the subject of an investigation and a prosecution at the Old Bailey. It was the disclosures then made publicly at the Old Bailey that enabled the Government to introduce the ban that would have brought, indeed did bring, GCHQ into common parlance.
      Opposition Members may have a distant recollection of a Labour Administration, and it is worth remembering that it was a Labour Government who brought criminal proceedings against three people who disclosed the work of GCHQ, and a Labour Government who arranged for the deportation of the two people who wrote the notorious article in Time Out.
      All that is neatly forgotten now, but at that time Labour Ministers were persuaded of the enormous importance of the work of GCHQ, and of keeping its activities secret. There was some controversy during that period but, to their undying credit, Labour Ministers were willing to go the whole hog.
      The two people were expelled from this country. They exhausted their appeals procedures, but the Home Secretary of the day never lost his backbone. Thus, between 1979 and 1981, the Government were extremely reluctant to draw more attention to GCHQ. Regardless of whether the right decision was made, that was the explanation. The proposition that in 1984 the Prime Minister and the Government took arbitrary action is utter nonsense.
      As for the International Labour Organisation, many Conservative Members who have studied its history will have considerable reservations about any judgment or criticism from that quarter. Certainly, until the mid-1950s, the ILO was regarded virtually as a branch of Soviet military intelligence. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Yes. I shall not detain the House with a long list of the intelligence connections, but a clear link was established by a royal commission, through, for example, some work conducted in Canada in 1945. ILO members were identified as obvious Soviet intelligence personnel.
      Mr. Winnick: I do not understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's case. Even if it is possible—and indeed, in view of the nature of the Soviet Union, likely—that there were agents in the ILO, so what? No doubt the same was true of the United Nations. During the period of communism in Russia and elsewhere, should we have abolished the United Nations, or discontinued our membership of it, simply because the Soviet Union was doing its usual work of destabilisation, along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested?
      Mr. Allason: I am grateful for that intervention. I merely add that I recall the ILO being surprisingly quiet about the rights of workers who wanted to exercise their right to work at Grunwick. The political discrimination of the ILO has been remarkable when it looks for particular issues on which to go in to bat.
      GCHQ is an important organisation, and its work must not be undermined by any interruption, albeit temporary.
      278
      The issue of continuity has rather been missed in the debate hitherto, so I shall give the House a brief analysis. Continuity is not a matter of simple data collection, or of one individual hunched over a machine—or indeed, if the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is to be believed, switching it on on a Friday and switching it off on a Monday when he comes in to work. There is the matter of collateral.
      First, there is the collection of electronic data. That involves more than one person. Several people have to do it to ensure that it is accurate. If there is any corruption, the rest of the text may well be lost. That is the lesson that history teaches us.
      Secondly, there must be continuous analysis of the data product. There should be no interruption of that. Finally, none of it is at all relevant unless it can be received in time by the appropriate departments and politicians. Anyone who doubts that should simply look at the history books. It is perfectly clear that, in December 1941, there was an enormous amount of cryptographic evidence of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, but none of the material was analysed in time. The White House did not receive it until nine days after the attack.
      The statistical suggestion has been made that, as there are 6,500 or 7,000 employees at GCHQ, where only 10,000 days have been lost, one can extrapolate that that is the equivalent of everybody not working on one particular day during the year. Things do not work like that. The importance of intelligence is that it saves lives. It is not any kind of game.
      If there had been good intelligence, we should not have had to fight the Falklands war or the Gulf war. Back beyond that, good intelligence would have meant that the Israelis would not have been taken by surprise during Yom Kippur in October 1973, and the allies would not have been taken by surprise in Korea, the Americans during the Tet offensive in 1968.
      Good intelligence saves lives and prevents bloodshed. Surely that is the point. Any disruption of GCHQ's activities will inevitably compromise intelligence.
      Dr. John Gilbert: Good intelligence by itself does not save lives. Whether lives are saved depends on whether people have the will and the sense to act on that intelligence.
      Mr. Allason: If the right hon. Gentleman has the honour to serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I hope that he will make a greater contribution than that. I fear that his remarks will be remembered by members of the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, who have saved tens of thousands of lives.
      If the right hon. Gentleman is ever a member of the committee and gets to see classified information, I hope that he will return to the House and acknowledge the extraordinary work of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ in saving lives and preventing terrorist bombs being placed. Even within the right hon. Gentleman's short memory, he should be able to recall specific incidents. In one instance, a suspect was followed through the west end carrying bombs—he left bombs in wastepaper baskets, and lives were lost. In particular, one person was killed in a pub. Good intelligence saves lives, and is exceptionally important.
      6 pm
      Sir John Nott said that GCHQ had operated continuously, and that there had been no threat to its operational efficiency during his term of office. He was talking about the Falklands war, but I described a scenario in which good intentions prevent bloodshed.
      The right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) will recall that, when Lord Owen was Foreign Secretary, he presided over a considerable intelligence success. In 1977, there was clear evidence of an Argentine attack in the Falklands, and Britain deployed two hunter-killer submarines in the south Atlantic. The news of their deployment was deliberately leaked in Buenos Aires, and no Argentine attack took place.
      Mr. Rogers: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the statement by Sir John Nott, then Secretary of State for Defence, that was much quoted on Second Reading, in Committee and today was made on 14 April 1981.
      Mr. Allason: That may be the case, but Sir John did not have responsibility for GCHQ. That brings me neatly to the difference between the status of GCHQ personnel and that of their military counterparts.
      A large number of GCHQ's activities are conducted by military personnel—Air Force analysts, two special signals regiments and naval interception operators. There is a difference between them. In legal terms or in terms of the trade union ban, there would have been no difference at all if it had been clear at the time that it would be impossible to disclose the nature of the work undertaken by GCHQ. That relates to my reference to GCHQ as the victim of its own success. Its work was of such priority that it was impossible to disclose its exact nature.
      I do not impugn the loyalty of GCHQ staff members, and neither, I am sure, do my right hon. and hon. Friends. Personal disloyalty is not an issue here. All GCHQ staff were given the right of abandoning the opportunity to join an outside trade union, and many exercised it. They also exercised their right to join a staff association. Our earlier discussion related to just 14 people who, for one reason or another, decided against both options. That matter is for them. The Government certainly bent over backwards to provide them with alternative employment and to give them opportunities in a non-classified field outside GCHQ.
      Of the many thousands of people who opted to accept financial compensation for the loss of their right to join an outside trade union, a tiny minority chose exclusion. It was entirely self-imposed.
      GCHQ is an extraordinarily significant organisation. It makes an enormous contribution to this country's security, and it is on a par with the Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service. I have not heard Opposition Members demand that members of MI5 or SIS should have the right to join the First Division Association. Through their membership of the federation, GCHQ staff enjoy a far greater chance of obtaining better pay and conditions.
      When I recently interviewed Yuri Modin, who was for many years a Soviet intelligence officer based in this country, he said, "MI5 officers run the very best union in the country." I asked him what he meant and he replied, "Whenever I wanted to be active, I arranged to have breakfast in exactly the same café in Holland Park avenue every day. It was entirely agreed with my MI5 counterparts that they would be there at 8 o'clock each morning to start work. When I was under surveillance in any pub, I gave an
      280
      agreed sign when I was finishing my last drink, so that the MI5 watchers would have an opportunity to drink up in time."
      That may be a slightly backhanded compliment from Yuri Modin, for whom I have been trying to obtain a visa for some time, but MI5 has a good union. The SIS and GCHQ have every reason to expect that their own staff associations will exercise a disproportionate amount of influence over the Government of the day. Accordingly, I urge the House to oppose new clause 1.
      Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I find myself in the same unfortunate position as on Second Reading of following the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in his forage through history—not all of which was accurate.
      I am a member of a trade union, as are all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I am proud of it.
      Mr. Rogers: We are members of several trade unions.
      Mrs. Prentice: That is probably true.
      Some Conservative Members have been trade union members, and may still be, and I am sure that they are equally proud of their membership. That is why this debate is so strange. Conservative Members seem to believe that, while it is perfectly acceptable for them to be trade union members, it is unacceptable for other groups—particularly for people who perform important, professional and patriotic work.
      The Government's reason for banning trade unions at GCHQ had nothing to do with national security, but was a product of an innate hatred of trade unionism and collectivity by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately, the present Prime Minister does not have the gumption to stand up and say that that was wrong.
      What is it about the Government that makes them so afraid of people who like to work together in a collective and co-operative fashion? What makes the Government unable to realise that that can have a positive outcome on those people, collectively and individually?
      Mention was made of the breach of ILO convention 87 that the Government made or are about to make, and it has been said that, by the end of this year, it is likely that the Government will have taken the United Kingdom into the same group as the Sudan, which was censured for slavery, and El Salvador, which was censured for the murder of trade unionists.
      It is both disgusting and despicable that the Government are prepared to accept that censure. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but they are not. They care nothing for the people who work on their behalf to ensure our national security. Indeed, they do not care for anyone who works in the public service. It has been clear over the past 15 years that the Government, throughout all their strands, have no conception of what it is to work on behalf of others, which so many people believe to be the right thing to do.
      Much has been made of the 10,000 days lost at GCHQ through industrial action. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, that number is tiny when compared with the days lost as a result of sickness. The days-lost argument was dismissed by Sir John Nott, when he explained that operations had not been affected. Days lost stand as nothing when we remember those who have been sacked for being trade unionists at GCHQ.

      281
      The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) talked about one of the 14 men who were sacked at GCHQ. I shall mention Mike Grindley, who was the only Chinese technical linguist. What was the disruption to operational services when the Government sacked Mike Grindley? As I have said, his sacking meant that there was no technical Chinese linguist at GCHQ. What was the Government's response? They chose to close the department.
      So much for the collection of data. So much for the need to have that data collected day in and day out for the consistency that Conservative Members have talked about this afternoon. The department was simply shut down. Suddenly, it was no longer important. It is clear that the Government's arguments are fallacious.
      What was the basis on which trade unions at GCHQ were banned? It took the Government three years to come to that decision following the industrial action between 1979 and 1981. It is incomprehensible that there is a connection between the ban and the industrial action that took place three years earlier.
      What was happening to national security between 1981 and 1984? Were the Government not concerned about national security during that period? Is that why it took them so long to get round to deciding that everything was the fault of trade unions, and that trade unions had to be banned?
      I am not surprised that Conservative Members become excited when they find that people have principles and are prepared to stand by them. It was interesting that Conservative Members had little to say in Committee except on trade unions at GCHQ. When the issue arose, they suddenly became fired up. It seems that they do not understand that people might put principles before money. Perhaps that should not surprise us. That attitude or philosphy has driven the Government for the past 15 years. It is beyond their comprehension that people might believe in things that matter to them as individuals rather than in a material fashion.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends and I want to put it on record that the employees of GCHQ are both loyal and patriotic. Unfortunately, Conservative Members are incapable of understanding that. The Government's actions in 1984 were shameful. The Government continue to cover themselves in shame while they ban workers at GCHQ from having the right to choose to be a member of a trade union.
      When Conservative Members troop through the Lobby this evening to ensure that the ban remains in place, they will be covering themselves with the same shame that should attach to the Sudan, to Brazil, to El Salvador and to any other countries whose Governments do not allow their workers the freedom of expression that we ask for the workers at GCHQ.
      Conservative Members may vote down the clause, but the time will come, sooner rather than later, when a Labour Government will return the right of trade unionism to the patriotic, professional and principled men at GCHQ. We shall be proud to do so.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Thomas Graham: When I was 16 years of age, I served my apprenticeship in a firm at Govan called Matthew Wylies. When I was presented with my first union card, I was a
      282
      proud young man. I am now 50 years of age, and I am proud that I still hold the same card. I come from a family of trade unionists. My late father was a trade unionist. He served in the Royal Navy for nine years. He was on HMS Medway when it sank.
      I heard that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is getting together the bones of a new book. Bearing in mind what he had to say, it will not be a best seller among trade unionists.
      I have had many conversations with friends and members of my family about their belief in trade unionism. We have never seen trade unionism as a threat to the nation's security. I am not kidded by the comments of some Conservative Members. I believe that the Government have inherited a vindictive policy from the former Prime Minister, whose hatred of trade unions and anything that smacked of trade unionism was well known. She used trade unionism at GCHQ as a lever.
      It is appalling that the folk at GCHQ have had their democratic right to be members of a trade union withdrawn in the name of national security. The argument that the Government have advanced is spurious and undemocratic. The blanket ban is completely illogical.
      Thousands of men and women laid down their lives to beat Hitler. Many folk have laid down their lives since for our country in the Falklands and other wars. I am sure that many of those people were members of trade unions. How can we deny those who work in GCHQ the membership of a trade union on the basis that that could jeopardise national security? The Government's approach is appalling. It is a travesty of justice.
      Before I entered the Chamber, I explained to a couple of trade unionists what I was about to do and say. They are workers in a royal ordnance factory. I am sure that such people are involved in work that is sensitive in terms of our country's defence. I am sure also that they never exploited their positions by telling others what they are doing. We know that in a crisis they will ensure that ammunition is ready and available for soldiers, sailors and whoever needs it to defend our nation.
      People say to me, "Tommy, to be a member of a trade union gives us a sense of pride. We are proud to be part of the great trade union movement of this country. It is an organisation that has always put the country to the fore." More important, it has put people to the fore. It continues to fight for the rights of the people, but not for folk who give away secrets, people who are prepared to see our country invaded and dominated by an enemy.
      When I was a young man, I worked at Rolls-Royce. I was involved in the production of military equipment. None of the people with whom I worked was a traitor. Indeed, they would have been angry if they had even been thought of as traitors. Yet the Government have banned the folk at GCHQ from being members of a trade union.
      Why are they being denied that right? I have not heard a Conservative Member state clearly why the folk at GCHQ are not entitled to be democratic members of a trade union. The Government's stance is unbelievable.
      Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend find it strange that Conservative Members supported the rights of Solidarity in Poland yet denied the same rights to workers in this country? Does he agree that it is only right-wing Governments, if we bear in mind history, and especially events in Latin America, who attack trade unionists? That is because the positive role of trade

      283
      unionists is the defence of democracy. Nevertheless, Conservative Members have had much to say about reds under the bed, for example.
      Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend is right. In the past, the Government have used anything to support their arguments for what they feel is right. They support trade unions in Poland, but they do not support them here. Trade unions in Poland can go on strike, but those in Britain cannot. I find such logic distasteful, to say the least.
      It would be great if we all had hindsight and could look back and say, "If we had known this, we would not have done that." It would be magic if we had a crystal ball and we could see what faces the world and Britain—we would perhaps see an important step forward in the restructuring of Britain—but while the Government maintain their view on civil rights, particularly the civil rights of those at GCHQ, we shall never have democracy and we shall never make Britain great. The Government do not trust our people. They do not trust the men and women who work at GCHQ to be good solid citizens who will not stoop to treachery. They tell us that they do not believe that those folk should be members of a trade union because it would put national security at risk. I could go on, but I do not wish to speak for too long.
      No matter how often the Government try, they cannot justify the trade union ban at GCHQ. We used to hear the statement that trade union decisions for the Labour party conference were reached in a smoke-filled room. We all know that that was nonsense. Even if it did contain an element of truth, the Government's decision was reached over champagne glasses and big cigars by people who do not understand what trade unionism is about. They do not understand that trade unionists see themselves as a part of the country and want to take part in the building of the country.
      Only with the engine of trade unionism and with the solid backing of workers with rights will Britain ever become a good place in which to stay. Only then will we see decent pensions and decent education for young people. Only if we give folk democratic rights will they have a sense of pride in their nation and work hard to create a good Britain in which to live. The Government should do the right thing and restore the democratic right of every citizen in this country to be a member of a trade union if they so desire.
      Dr. Gilbert: I feel that I should start by apologising to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who is not in his place. I clearly over-taxed his mental equipment when I intervened in his speech. I promise never to intervene on him again. I would have liked to have been able to say that to the hon. Gentleman's face, but as he was so discourteous as to leave the Chamber only a couple of moments after my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) began her speech, I feel that I owe him no courtesy on this occasion.
      I will not detain the House for long. I support virtually everything that has been said with such eloquence, knowledge and passion by Labour Members, except for one thing. I do not necessarily pray in aid any of the authorities that they have prayed in aid this evening. I do not give a toss what the International Labour Organisation says about the issue at Cheltenham and I am not panting to
      284
      know what the European Court of Human Rights has to say about it. I do not need either of those organisations, however august they may be, to tell me that what was done was sleazy and vindictive, had nothing to do with defence considerations and sprang from the Government's mentality, which has left, among other things, this great city of London without any proper governance for many years.
      The only other reason that I am on my feet is to make it clear that even those Labour Members who could be regarded as pretty hawkish on defence and security matters—I make no apology for that, never have done and never will do in this place—are enthusiastically at one in support of the new clause and will vote for it with great enthusiasm. We will not do so simply because we are Lobby fodder.
      Mr. David Davis: I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on one thing—I, too, pay credit to the work of the staff at GCHQ. I hope that he will take it well that I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who said the same thing, as did a number of others.
      There have been some well-informed speeches this evening, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who has a direct constituency interest and who made some excellent points about the whole debate. I particularly associate myself with one of those points—the credit that he paid to the staff federation. I do not want to labour that point, just to reinforce it. Although he is not here, I appreciate the remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who has more reason than most to have a special interest in the matter.
      Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene at such an early stage in his speech. Since the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) did not give way, will the Minister confirm that the staff union, which to us is just a company union, was refused recognition as a genuine, independent trade union by the certification officer? Its application was turned down and rightly so. On appeal, the employment appeals tribunal upheld the decision of the certification officer. As he made clear, that union, if it can be described as such, exists only because the director general allows it to continue as an organisation.
      Mr. Davis: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman exactly. He was rather inexact in his question because he used a variety of words such as "genuine", as well as "independent". The one word that he was right about was "independent". About 80 trade unions are listed as not independent. Like the staff federation, many of them have been commended by the certification officer for being effective, which they are, but they are not certified as independent. They include the National Union of Mineworkers area unions. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any reason to run those down.
      Clearly, it is the first duty of the Government to safeguard the security of the nation. In the context of the new clause, it is the principal responsibility of Government to maintain the security and effectiveness of GCHQ. The Government set out their objective in 1981—to ensure the continuous undisrupted operation of GCHQ. The Government's action in 1984 has been effective in ensuring the continuous operation of GCHQ since then.
      Disruption of GCHQ operations posed a substantive risk to the country's security. Industrial action was taken

      285
      with the express intention of causing disruption and it succeeded in doing so. The Government clearly had a duty to act.
      The continued effective and efficient operation of GCHQ requires that there is no division or confusion of loyalties.
      Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Davis: I will give way in a moment. I want to make at least a little progress.
      In practice, membership of external unions has led to a risk of divided loyalties, a point that I shall make in some detail later. That is not a theoretical matter—it has happened in the past. Labour's case today, and to some extent that of the Liberal Democrats, has rested on arguments that go something like, "The strikes did not do any material harm and if they did, that was not really intended anyway, it was just a spat with the management locally". All those arguments are fatuous.
      The Opposition's position is that industrial action involving GCHQ in the period 1979 to 1981 did not harm national security. How can they be so sure? The point of GCHQ is to listen continuously for possible threats to the country or to its citizens. Any break in its vigil poses a potential threat. With modern techniques, vast amounts of data can be sent in a short space of time. A few seconds' gap is enough to miss a vital instruction to terrorists.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Were there any gaps?
      Mr. Davis: Yes.
      In these days of burst transmission, even a speech by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) could be transmitted in a few seconds. We should bear in mind that one could be trying to intercept, for example, one-word instructions that may launch an operation, a terrorist action or something of that nature. The whole point about GCHQ is that it operates seven days a week, 24 hours a day, 60 minutes in the hour.
      Mr. Carlile: Are we hearing a Minister say for the very first time that there were some gaps in communications—that they were not received? He should answer that directly, because if there were, this is the first time that the claim has been made in the 16 years since the dispute began.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Davis: I shall come back to the point in a minute.
      It is not possible to forecast when a state-sponsored terrorist organisation will communicate with its masters, or when other actions by an antagonistic state will occur. In pursuit of the maintenance of continuous operations, it is vital that staff at GCHQ do not face conflicts of loyalty that may lead to a loss of efficiency, or to a loss of coverage, or to any breakdown of GCHQ activities.
      In 1979–81, 10,000 man days were lost as a result of union action, and they were lost in critical areas of work. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made a rather fatuous point in this connection. He said that the 10,000 days lost were fewer than the number of days lost owing to sickness or holidays, but the latter, of course, were not targeted. GCHQ, like any properly run organisation, is designed to allow for absences for jury days, holidays and so on.
      The industrial action was set against the background of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian hostage
      286
      crisis, Soviet troops on the border of Poland and rising state-sponsored terrorism in a number of countries. The Opposition must accept that there was a least some disruption. The unions themselves accepted as much.
      Dr. John Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the statement by the former Secretary of State for Defence, Sir John Nott, that the effectiveness of GCHQ was never put in jeopardy?
      Mr. Davis: I happen to have Sir John's exact words to hand, as reported in the Official Report:
      "The selective action by non-industrial civil servants has hindered some defence activities, but neither training exercises nor essential operations have been interrupted."—[Official Report, 14 April 1981; Vol. 3, c. 136.]
      Later, the then Prime Minister said that Sir John was referring only to military operations:
      "GCHQ did not come under his then Department and does not now."—[Official Report, 31 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 136.]
      As I told the Committee, about 3,000 soldiers act on behalf of GCHQ gathering military data. The industrial action did not interfere with their duties because they could not go on strike in any case.
      As I was saying, the Opposition must accept that there was some disruption because the unions themselves accepted that. At the Employment Select Committee meeting on 8 February 1984, at page 39 and section 77, it was reported that Mr. McCall of the Council of Civil Service Trade Unions had been asked:
      "have you disrupted security in the past, by industrial action?"—
      and that he had replied
      "I think the straightforward answer to that is yes, we have."
      The Opposition clearly feel that all this was not a risk to security. I should be interested to know what degree of disruption they believe is acceptable at GCHQ. The Government's view is: none.
      Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister now answer my straight question? Does he claim for the first time that there was any interruption to any message, or that any transmission was not recorded, as a result of this action? The Minister has made the implication; now that he has made it, the House is entitled to a straight answer.
      Mr. Davis: I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman again: there were some reductions in cover. Some material may therefore have been missed—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members seem to think that unimportant, yet we are talking about a time of state-sponsored terrorism and of the Soviet Union being on the borders of Poland. Opposition Members clearly believe that some drop in cover was all right. Now we know what price to put on the Labour party's commitment to patriotism—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is getting to the point where I cannot hear the Minister. I, at least, wish to do so.
      Mr. Davis: I have dispatched Labour's point about there having been no loss of cover and about the industrial action having caused no damage.
      The other Labour argument is that the action was not intentional. What happened at GCHQ between 1979 and 1981 was a deliberate attempt on the part of the civil service unions to disrupt the operations of a vital national defence asset. I shall tell the story not in my words but in those of the trade unions involved. A national officer of the Civil and Public Services Association was quoted as saying, under the Labour Government in February 1979:

      287
      "The strike would completely paralyse Government communications, both internally and externally."
      A local official was quoted a few days later as saying:
      "Our action will seriously affect operations by at least 80 per cent., as our members are specialists."—[Official Report, 27 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 27–28.]
      That point seems to have been overlooked by many Opposition Members. This is not Government propaganda; it is what the trade unions themselves had to say.
      I should like next to quote evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment:
      "During the period of industrial action in 1981 there was one occasion on which an approach was made by a senior official of GCHQ … to … one of the national Civil Service trade unions … The reply … was 'Thank you. You are telling me where I am hurting Mrs. Thatcher the most.""
      There was no lessening of pressure as a result. The unions announced in the same month:
      "There will be a range of selective and disruptive action which will affect Britain's secret communications surveillance network. There will be both national and international repercussions."
      And on 3 April a senior union official said:
      "This is the most crucial station we have hit so far. We are going to hit this Department 'as hard as we can.—[Official Report, 27 February 1984; Vol. 55, c. 27–28.]
      So the areas of attack by industrial activity had clearly been carefully selected. The civil service unions' campaign report No.1 of 1981 clearly stated:
      "The use of selective strike action by members in sensitive areas is a key part of our campaign. Our ultimate success depends on the extent to which…defence readiness is hampered."
      That indeed was the intent. The unions may not have been in a position to know precisely how effective their action was, but it could hardly have been called accidental.
      There is thus clear evidence of the effects of divisions of loyalty on the staff of GCHQ and of how those effects could be adverse for the operations of GCHQ. There is also clear evidence of the willingness of past union movement leaders to misuse their position to damage the country's security in pursuit of their own goals. I do not say that today's union leaders would necessarily behave in the same way, but that is really not the point. The new clause proposes a change in the law that would presumably apply for the foreseeable future. We cannot guarantee that there would not be similar industrial action at some point in that future.
      The right hon. Member for Copeland made a number of points that I could not follow. He said, for instance, that there was a 1991 vote at the ILO. I can find no evidence of such a vote. The last one was in 1989, and we won that one. He also claimed that the ban was arbitrary. The decision of the European Commission on Human Rights stated, on page 31, in the second paragraph:
      "The action taken was in no way arbitrary."
      Several hon. Members talked about the International Labour Organisation. In his excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) highlighted the complete humbug of Labour Members' speeches, as exemplified by the comments made by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert).
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) asked me to comment specifically on some matters. The Government do not accept that they are in breach of convention 87, which must be read in conjunction with convention 151, which explicitly provides separate arrangements for public servants employed on work of a highly sensitive nature. If GCHQ
      288
      public servants are not employed on work of a sensitive nature I do not know who is. The Government have noted the comments of the ILO, have engaged in substantive discussions with the unions—those were taken on in good faith by both sides—and are still willing to consider any proposals that the unions bring forward.
      In a written answer of 13 January 1994 the Prime Minister said:
      "I met representatives of the civil service unions to discuss trade union membership at GCHQ at their request following a series of discussions they had held with officials. I explained that the Government's overriding objective remained to ensure the maintenance of continuous operations at GCHQ necessary for the protection of national security. In that context it was necessary also to ensure that the staff were not subject to potential conflicts of loyalty.
      Against that background, however, I indicated that the Government were prepared to enable the Government Communications Staff Federation, the registered trade union for GCHQ staff, to affiliate to the Council of Civil Service Unions, subject to conditions to guarantee its continuing independence…The national trade unions have indicated that they do not regard this as acceptable. There are no plans for further meetings, but the Government remain willing to discuss any further proposals that the unions may wish to put forward."—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 254–55.]
      In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I say that that is still the case.
      I advise the House to oppose the new clause.
      Mr. Rogers: Although we agreed to share the available time, unfortunately the Minister has taken up a great deal of it. As many hon. Members want to go to the memorial service for our late colleague, Ms Jo Richardson, which is due to start very soon, I shall confine my remarks to one or two points.
      The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that the question of GCHQ had dominated the Committee proceedings. As members of the Committee know, that is absolute nonsense. We dealt with other aspects. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) talked about the rights of people currently working at GCHQ. I simply reiterate a point that was made to the hon. Gentleman: if the rights of GCHQ workers are so important, why do not the Government, under their own legislation, allow them a ballot on the question of their joining a trade union of their choice? The staff federation, regardless of what the Minister has said, is almost like a Stalinist trade union: the workers can have it so long as it is approved by the director. That is why the certification officer has not recognised the federation as a full and proper trade union. The Government's argument is absolutely spurious.
      The whole debate is based on whether GCHQ is under threat if people take any action or are not there. Apart from the fact that the trade unions have given the Government a firm no-strike undertaking—a firm undertaking of exactly the same type, for example, as that which the police give —it should be remembered that data collection at GCHQ occupies less than 10 per cent. of the work force. The industrial action that took place in 1979 and between 1979 and 1981—in this connection I remind the House of remarks made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)—arose because the management had overturned a national pay agreement without any consultation whatever.
      The number of days lost, in relative terms, was about 0.2 per cent. of the total work time during a period of two years. Over that period, up-front operations were at no time affected in any way. That is something that the Minister

      289
      can check quite easily. The majority of people at GCHQ work a 9 to 5.30 shift. There are other operations. Various electronic devices are used in data collection, and the idea that someone with a pencil sits listening to what our enemies are saying on the other side of the world is absolute nonsense—as much as is the Government's argument against trade unions at GCHQ.
      I reiterate a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham): one of the first acts of the Labour Government when they come to power in a couple of years' time will be to restore this basic human right to the workers at GCHQ.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 283.

      Division No. 221]

      [6.44 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Eastham, Ken

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Enright, Derek

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Etherington, Bill

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Fisher, Mark

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Foulkes, George

      Bell, Stuart

      Fraser, John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Fyfe, Maria

      Benton, Joe

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Galloway, George

      Berry, Roger

      Garrett, John

      Blair, Tony

      George, Bruce

      Blunkett, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Boyes, Roland

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bradley, Keith

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Godsiff, Roger

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Graham, Thomas

      Burden, Richard

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Byers, Stephen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caborn Richard

      Grocott, Bruce

      Callaghan, Jim

      Gunnell, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hall, Mike

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hardy, Peter

      Cann, Jamie

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Harvey, Nick

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Heppell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clelland, David

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Connarty, Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoyle, Doug

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Cox, Tom

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cummings, John

      Jamieson, David

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Janner, Greville

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Keen, Alan

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

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Denham, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Dewar, Donald

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dixon, Don

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dobson, Frank

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Dowd, Jim

      Lewis, Terry

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Litherland, Robert

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Livingstone, Ken

      290

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Radice, Giles

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Randall, Stuart

      Loyden, Eddie

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Redmond, Martin

      McAllion, John

      Reid, Dr John

      McCartney, Ian

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      McFall, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      McKelvey, William

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Rogers, Allan

      McLeish, Henry

      Rooker, Jeff

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Rowlands, Ted

      McWilliam, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Madden, Max

      Salmond, Alex

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mahon, Alice

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mandelson, Peter

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marek, Dr John

      Simpson, Alan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Michael, Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Milburn, Alan

      Spearing, Nigel

      Miller, Andrew

      Spellar, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Stevenson, George

      Morley, Elliot

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Straw, Jack

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Mudie, George

      Turner, Dennis

      Mullin, Chris

      Wallace, James

      Murphy, Paul

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wareing, Robert N

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      O'Neill, Martin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Parry, Robert

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Patchett, Terry

      Wilson, Brian

      Pendry, Tom

      Winnick, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wise, Audrey

      Pike, Peter L.

      Worthington, Tony

      Pope, Greg

      Wray, Jimmy

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Prescott, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Purchase, Ken

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Boswell, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Amess, David

      Bowden, Andrew

      Arbuthnot, James

      Bowis, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Ashby, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bright, Graham

      Atkins, Robert

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Baldry, Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Burt, Alistair

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Butcher, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butler, Peter

      Beggs, Roy

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Carrington, Matthew

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Carttiss, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Churchill, Mr

      Body, Sir Richard

      Clappison, James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Booth, Hartley

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      291

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Congdon, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jessel, Toby

      Cormack, Patrick

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cran, James

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Key, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Devlin, Tim

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Knapman, Roger

      Dicks, Terry

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, Sir David

      Dover, Den

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan, Alan

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Legg, Barry

      Eggar, Tim

      Leigh, Edward

      Elletson, Harold

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lidington, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lord, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Luff, Peter

      Faber, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fabricant, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Maclean, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fishburn, Dudley

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Forman, Nigel

      Madel, Sir David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Malone, Gerald

      Forth, Eric

      Mans, Keith

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Marland, Paul

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Marlow, Tony

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      French, Douglas

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gallie, Phil

      Mates, Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Garnier, Edward

      Merchant, Piers

      Gill, Christopher

      Mills, Iain

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Gorst, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hague, William

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Norris, Steve

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hannam, Sir John

      Page, Richard

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Paice, James

      Harris, David

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hawksley, Warren

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hendry, Charles

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Hicks, Robert

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Horam, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Richards, Rod

      292

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Thomason, Roy

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Thurnham, Peter

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Sackville, Tom

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Tracey, Richard

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Trend, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Trotter, Neville

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shersby, Michael

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Sims, Roger

      Walden, George

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Waller, Gary

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Watts, John

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Wells, Bowen

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Whitney, Ray

      Spring, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wilkinson, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Willetts, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stern, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Stewart, Allan

      Wolfson, Mark

      Streeter, Gary

      Yeo, Tim

      Sumberg, David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sykes, John

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mr. Timothy Wood.

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      THE SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
      Mr. Rogers: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'with particular reference' and insert
      'and where there is a threat'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 2, line 1, after '(b)', insert 'where it is substantially'.
      No. 6, in page 2, line 3, after 'crime', insert
      'which if not prevented would have a serious effect on law and order in the United Kingdom, on citizens of the United Kingdom or on employees of the Crown'.
      No. 38, in clause 11, page 8, line 34, at end insert—
      '(3) The Secretary of State shall by order define the meaning of "national security", "economic well-being" and "serious crime".
      (4) No order shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
      (5) An order made under subsection (3) above shall cease to have effect at the end of five years beginning with the day on which it came into effect.'
      Mr. Rogers: Clause 1 deals with the principles, circumstances and guidelines under which the security services may operate. The Opposition feel—I think we demonstrated this in Committee—that the clause is ambiguous and places few controls on the operations. The clause gives no indication of what actions are acceptable under its remit—of what laws can be broken and, except in the most general terms, for what purposes; it describes the shape but gives no one an idea of the colour of the matter.

      293
      The Lord Chancellor stated in the other place that nothing in the Bill put the security and intelligence services outside the law. He was right. But is not that simply because the clause is so all-embracing that it puts every action inside the law to start with? For example, is a shoot-to-kill policy acceptable in a civilised society? I am not saying that a shoot-to-kill policy exists; its existence or otherwise is not a matter for discussion this evening, but it could certainly exist within the remit of the Bill.
      7 pm
      It can be argued, as it was in Committee, that clauses 8 and 9 cover those problems in the sense that the warranting of the secret services and their ability to operate outside the law are tightly controlled by the Foreign Secretary. However, I am sure that when we come to discuss the warranting of certain actions, we shall see that the guidelines laid down for warranting give the secret intelligence services an open field in which to operate.
      The problem with the Bill is that it puts the secret intelligence services outside the law. The warrants and authorisations in the Bill are a circumscription but they are not sufficient because the warrants are issued by the Secretary of State, who is not accountable to anyone—not even a court of law. Therefore, there is no legal proscription. Everything drops off at the commissioner and the tribunal. No one can have recourse to a court of law whether in the normal process of events or as a complainant. That is laid down in the Bill. That means that there is no legal proscription of the actions of the security and intelligence services. The Secretary of State is not a judge or a court of law, so there is no legal proscription. As we discussed in Committee, any task that one can think of—murder in an extreme situation, clubbing, imprisonment, torture or blackmail—could be put into action under a warrant. If the Secretary of State feels that he is prepared to operate that power without recourse to any secondary process of accountability—and when we come to discuss clause 10 we shall find that there is no real process of accountability—he will certainly have it under the Bill.
      The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to read the narrow terms of the warrant-making power in clause 5. He will see that it relates to
      "entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy".
      It has none of the other effects to which he refers. He may be talking about clause 7 authorisations. If he is, we can discuss that.
      Mr. Rogers: The Minister is right. I said that the warranting of certain actions came under another clause, which we would discuss later. The Minister ought to consider what is enclosed within clause 1. Rather than sitting there smugly thinking that he has made a rather smart debating point, he ought to realise that clause 1 lays out the structure, guidelines and controls under which the secret and intelligence services can operate.
      I remind the Minister what the amendments say. We seek to close the open field that is given to the secret intelligence services. For example, amendment No. 3 refers to implementation of the powers where there is seen to be a threat to this country and to national security. Amendment No. 4 says that the powers should be
      294
      implemented "where it is substantially" in the interests of the country—in other words, not for matters of a trivial nature. Amendment No. 6 refers to any crime
      "which if not prevented would have a serious effect on law and order in the United Kingdom, on citizens of the United Kingdom or on employees of the Crown".
      We are saying that the secret and intelligence services ought not to have the power in an open way, as they do under the Bill. The Opposition accept that we need to have a Security Service and that it needs to be secret. That is why we support the Bill. However, we are anxious to ensure that the service operates and is tasked in a proper way and that it is accountable. There will always be certain circumstances—for example, if we are faced with the forces of nazism or fascism or with extreme communist societies—in which the means are justified by the end. But in normal circumstances they are not. The Bill should contain general proscriptions. That is why the amendments are reasonable.
      We simply want to ensure that the secret and intelligence services are properly accountable. We recognise their role, going into the next century. We firmly believe that they will be important. Our amendments refer to "serious crime". The security services are important because we know that our society is under attack—by organised crime and drug running and peddling, for example. It is necessary for us to have intelligence on those activities so that we can take the necessary actions to prevent our society from being corrupted.
      On the other hand, we feel that we have a point and that some form of proscription should be laid down against the open-ended tasking that is available under clause 1. Even the warranting under later clauses does not sufficiently proscribe the actions that might be taken.
      I know that it is enormously difficult to reconcile an effective secret service with effective accountability, but that is at the heart of what a democratic society is about. If we do not resolve that difficult problem in an equitable way, we fail in the construction and operation of our society. There is no provision in the Bill under which the secret and intelligence services could be brought to book. That is why the amendments are good and reasonable.
      I know that the Minister will argue that the Intelligence
      and Security Committee will be set up and will be reported
      to, but the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will control the information which is given to that committee. They are the very same people who task the intelligence services with their job. So the Secretary of State will task the intelligence services under clause 1, will have the power to issue them with warrants under clause 5 and will be the only person to whom they are accountable.
      We shall discuss the oversight committee under clause 10. Any information which will come into it will have to be laundered by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and, even before that, by the intelligence services. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make strong arguments when we discuss clause 10 for giving extra powers to the committee so that it can obtain information and ensure that the intelligence services are accountable.
      Clause 1 is ambiguous. It sets few guidelines and controls for the services and their operations. Our amendments deal with their principal roles and the circumstances within which they may operate. The amendments are reasonable and I ask the House to support them.
      Mr. Allason: I am anxious about any suggestion of guidelines and controls as identified in clause 1 and especially in amendment No. 6. The Secret Intelligence Service has a wide remit and has consistently operated under strict ministerial controls. I understand that there was only one occasion, in 1956, when it slipped out of that control. That was an unfortunate lapse, which created a considerable internal row and cost Sir John Sinclair, who was the chief at the time, his job. On that occasion, a surveillance operation conducted under the Ordjonikideze went wrong and Buster Crabb lost his life. The Prime Minister was furious. It turned out that the Foreign Office adviser had lost his father on the morning of the day of the authorisation. As a result, the operation was authorised, with unfortunate and disastrous consequences. I do not know of any other occasion on which the service abused its responsibilities. The organisation would argue that on that occasion it had received full authority and that there had perhaps been an error in providing it.
      Since that time the organisation has surely always sought Foreign Office consent and ministerial support for each operation. That is why it has never been the, subject of the sort of investigations conducted in the United States by the Church committee, former Vice-President Rockefeller and others.
      The organisation certainly has a very clean record on assassinations. I recall Sir Dick White being especially anxious when Graham Greene wrote "The Human Factor" and suggested that the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service would authorise the assassination of a foreigner—or anyone else for that matter. Sir Dick White told me that that allegation was profoundly offensive, partly because such action simply was not structurally possible within the organisation and—more to the point—partly because it gave credence to the mythology that had been created around the SIS, which was that it was prepared to brook murder and mayhem. That is most emphatically not the case.
      One consequence of that mythology is that it tends to blur the issue when the SIS is mentioned in a criminal trial. When the Secretary of State opened his remarks on Second Reading he gave an example that is extremely relevant to amendment No. 6, describing a case in which the Secret Intelligence Service had provided clandestine surveillance of a drugs suspect in an unnamed country and had been able to provide information that was of enormous use to the authorities.
      My worry is about what will happen when someone is brought to trial in this country and the SIS is referred to. That will offer defence counsel a tremendous opportunity to exact great advantage. Defence counsel will be able to tell the jury, "The SIS is involved in this prosecution and we all know about them. They have assassinated people." He will be able to make many completely irrelevant allegations and may compromise the chances of obtaining a conviction. That is a very real worry, especially as the service has never indulged in criminal investigations and as we have a national drugs intelligence unit to co-ordinate intelligence on suspected drugs offences. The unit was set up by Colin Hewett, a distinguished deputy assistant commissioner at Scotland yard and a former head of special branch.
      296
      7.15pm
      I have strong reservations if a straightforward criminal offence such as drug smuggling, which is not a direct threat to the realm, is to be subject to SIS interference and surveillance, just as I have reservations about the Security Service being involved in anti-terrorist operations. Neither organisation has ever involved itself in such activities. One could interpret those developments by suggesting that the services are taking in washing. With the end of the cold war, one would have thought that there would be quite enough for them to do monitoring the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological and bacteriological weapons and other important threats to this country. It is worrying that they are actively seeking work on behalf of the regular police authorities, and it may well compromise criminal prosecutions.
      Although I oppose amendment No. 6, I very much hope that two messages will go from the House this evening. The first is that ordinary crime will be dealt with in an ordinary way in the Old Bailey, without screens to protect witnesses or anything of that sort that would smack of special treatment for a special crime; drug smuggling and peddling are criminal offences and should be treated as such. Secondly, the Front-Bench Opposition spokesman should not give any credence to the fact that anything like a shoot-to-kill policy exists; nor should he discuss it. That is absolute nonsense. As far as I am aware, the only shoot-to-kill policy that exists is that exercised by the Provisional IRA.
      Mr. Rogers: I agree that ordinary crime ought to be dealt with in the ordinary way by the police force and police officers. But there surely comes a point where, if intelligence is available and one is able to bring a particularly vicious bunch of drug smugglers to book—with the tentacles of organised crime ever present, many people think that we are in grave danger of corrupting our society—there is an argument for secrecy. Surely there is a case for saying that people could give evidence without giving away their identity.
      Mr. Allason: That is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman says that secrecy is necessary when such operations are conducted and he is right. Police officers are all subject to the Official Secrets Act. More to the point, they are used to giving evidence in court, have been trained and are subject to internal discipline. Who has heard of an SIS officer carrying a warrant card or being subject to any discipline that is available to external scrutiny? That does not happen, and there is a good reason for police officers, who are subject to that sort of scrutiny, conducting criminal investigations.
      My anxiety relates to the fact that, if SIS officers are involved in criminal prosecutions, they will have to appear in court; as they have never done so before, they will not be very good at it. Special branch officers who give evidence in court are hopeless, usually because they have appeared in court before only once.
      It is not just a matter of collecting intelligence, of mounting a successful prosecution and of giving evidence in court; it goes way beyond that. I believe that police officers, not the Secret Intelligence Service, should exercise that function. If we are in such a state that the Secret Intelligence Service is to become a branch of the

      297
      police service, as appears to be advocated by the Opposition, that is a very interesting development with considerable implications for human rights.
      Mr. Rogers: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an expert at writing fiction, but I wish that he would not exercise that function is relation to what I say. I never said—or even hinted—that the Secret Intelligence Service ought to be a branch of the police force. I said that, in the normal run of events, ordinary crime should be handled by the police, but that I could envisage circumstances whereby, if the witnesses who had to appear before the court were members of the Secret Intelligence Service, the court should allow them to give their evidence in secret or from behind a screen.
      Mr. Allason: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. On a point of fact, I must explain that I am primarily an historian—I have written 17 books of non-fiction—although it is true that I have made two not very good attempts at writing thrillers, which are fiction.
      I think the hon. Gentleman said that when a crime was particularly vicious or when criminals were particularly determined it might be appropriate to involve the Secret Intelligence Service. I dispute that. I am simply saying that it will be a gift to defence counsel in that it will provide them with an opportunity to muddy the water on behalf of their clients.
      However vicious the crime, it must be dealt with by normal criminal law and by police officers who are used to giving evidence in court. To be entirely candid, I am not sure that, in the Secretary of State's example, it would be possible for the prosecution to mount a case or obtain a conviction based on the evidence of an SIS officer who is operating illicitly overseas and collecting clandestine surveillance information. Such information may be useful, but I do not believe that that is an appropriate function of the Secret Intelligence Service and I very much hope that the House will reject amendment No. 6.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: The amendments are trying to limit and, it seems to me—subject to correction from the Opposition Front Bench—specifically focus the remit of the intelligence service. I want to speak in particular to amendment No. 38, in the name of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
      We discussed the remit and function of the intelligence service in the debate on the Bill to which this legislation is joined—the Security Services Act 1989 and, through it, the Official Secrets Act 1989. The debate about the remit, function and definition of national security—as set out in the hon. Gentleman's amendment—has exercised the minds of a great many people, including the Mcdonald commission on freedom and security in Canada.
      The Government have a great difficulty in this area. I am not unsympathetic to their plight; it is terribly difficult to define and refine what is necessary in these terms without the benefit of a White Paper and without any independent examination of the issues or input from Opposition Members and others. Without a proper examination of what the services do now, how does one judge what should be done?
      Clause 1(2)(a) contains the words
      "in the interests of national security with particular reference".
      The Opposition seek to drop those words and insert the words
      298
      "where there is a threat".
      I think that the proposal is endeavouring to make a proper and sensible limitation. It then refers to
      "the defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom".
      I know that the Minister, who has conducted the debate very honourably, will find all manner of reasons for refuting my point, but I can make an interpretation of those words. The "interests of national security" are not defined. There was a savage attack on the foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government in this country. It occurred when the Government tried to bring forward a deeply federalist Bill and make us part of a state in Europe. William Cash of Stafford was clearly subversive and a number of hon. Gentlemen have also pursued the undoing of Her Majesty's domestic and foreign affairs policy. There is no doubt that we gathered together in a covert fashion to discuss these matters. We also sat down and thought about how we could conspire to undermine the Government's attempt to thrust us into a sovereign European state.
      The intelligence service—which is no doubt listening intently—is no doubt aware that, if the Secretary of State so deemed it, the clause could be interpreted to mean that, in the interests of national security, that action was contrary to the well-being of the Government. That is why a number of people have tried to limit, or more specifically focus, these clauses—and more power to the Opposition Front Bench and the hon. Member for Leyton.
      These are very serious arguments and there are many more points to adduce. We should remember that the intelligence service can link up with the Security Service, and the remit of the Security Service can be transformed at the behest of the Secretary of State and at the request of the head of the service. The structure is very loose; it is not coherent. It is a typical British muddle. It is not even as well defined as the Maxwell Fyfe directive of 1952—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will correct me if I have the date wrong.
      Where are the limiting clauses in the Bill? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) suggests that there are none. That is the truth of the matter. This is a jumble of words that is open to interpretation. After all, did not Mr. Churchill stand in this House and launch a savage attack upon no less than the
      "defence and foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government"?
      Of course he did.
      I refer again to the Mcdonald commission. Where is the limitation of remit? Where is the recognition of the lawful dissent clause? On Second Reading, I said that it is very important to have some declaratory things in a statute covering an area that is so sensitive to the well-being and freedoms that we enjoy as British citizens, such as our understanding of civil liberties. None of that is in the Bill.
      I do not want to make a big thing of it, but the Bill should have been incorporated into the Security Service Act 1989. There should be one compendium Bill dealing with the functions of oversight and so on. It should relate to all the services set out in this legislation. Instead we have two pieces of paper and two different, wide definitions. I give a cheer for the Opposition for trying to limit this Bill.
      I also accept that, in a sense, the Government already have the Bill; it was given in the House of Lords and in this place. There has been no serious attempt to see whether there was a proper structure in which oversight and all the

      299
      other functions set out in this Bill could be pulled together and defined. First and central to this was the definition sought by the hon. Member for Leyton.
      Mr. Rogers: I think that the hon. Member is being a little unfair to the members of the Committee, who worked hard to put up very substantial arguments in order to alter the framework of the Bill in its final form.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am suitably rebuked; that is a fair point. I am crying out, in my anguish, about the way in which one does business. There was no White Paper. There has been no effort to maintain in what way this is a proper security force of the realm, what its definition and focus is and how one relates all these points to it.
      I wanted to make a brief speech. Most of the arguments have been addressed by the Security Service Act. Once one has a pre-delivered piece of legislation, which is secure in the heart of the Executive and not open to any form of discussion, the House is traduced because it can respond only along the tramlines of the thinking of the present Executive about these matters.
      I do not believe that the Bill, once enacted, will last for ever, if only because the civil liberties lobby and others will want greater security and definition on certain points. For that reason, I did not mean to criticise or to imply criticism of the Committee. I just wanted to make it clear that I support the principle behind the amendments. I understand why it is unlikely that they will be accepted, because the Executive have a view of how these matters should be conducted. They do not want any genuine limitation governing the recognition of lawful dissent, nor do they believe that it should be excluded from the remit of the security services. We are therefore at the behest of the benign intent of the Secretary of State whose direction those services follow.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his support of new clause 2, the case for which he emphasised with as eloquent a contribution as all the others that he has made throughout the passage of the Bill. His voice should be echoed loudly on the Opposition Benches as well.
      The hon. Member referred to amendment No. 38, which is a modest one. It calls for a definition of the terms "national security", " economic well-being" and "serious crime". After all, hundreds of millions of pounds are spent by the security services on activities relating specifically to those terms. The Government should attempt to define what they mean. My modest amendment would also ensure that such definition should be contained in an order, which should be renewed—subject to debate—at least once every five years.
      In parliamentary questions I have asked the Government to define the terms "national security", "economic well-being" and "serious crime". The Government replied that those terms are well understood, but, given the seriousness of the matter, that answer is not good enough.
      At the moment we leave it to the intelligence service, the people who carry out the relevant tasks, to interpret what those terms mean. We might as well say, "We are leaving it up to you, chaps and lasses, to interpret them as
      300
      you like." That is an extremely dangerous course to follow. I am not suggesting that those in the security services are not good people, but we are aware of instances where those in the intelligence service have attempted to subvert legitimate Governments in this country. We are also aware that the powers of the security services have been misused in other countries. The death last week of President Nixon brings to mind such an example. Those powers were also misused in Nazi Germany. Just because Britain has not suffered from the problem to that extent—as far as we are aware—does not mean that we should not have the legislative safeguards that other countries have thought it necessary to introduce.
      The definition of the terms set out in amendment No. 38 gives a legal basis for the actions that members of the security services take. If they step outside their proper remit, they could, one hopes, be brought to account by the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is wrong to leave the definition of those terms to the people who carry out particular functions connected with them.
      The matter should have been dealt with in the Security Service Act 1989, section 1 of which states that the function the service should be the
      "protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."
      That definition gave the security services the scope to hold personal data on individuals and its terms are potentially extremely wide. The use of the words "in particular" makes it clear that, although the security services place emphasis on those activities mentioned in section 1, the terms of the Act do not exclude other activities deemed as relevant to national security. The security services could interpret political demonstrations as a threat to national security or the activities of right-wing Conservative Members protesting about Maastricht, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said. A clearer definition of the function of the security services is therefore needed in the Bill, because whether certain other activities fall within the remit of MI5 or MI6 is, at the moment, left to be determined by members of those services. That cannot be right.
      My amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to give the definitions of the terms "national security", "economic well-being" and "serious crime" and would allow the House to approve them at least once in every Parliament. That approval would give those special powers the legitimacy that they require. I do not think that a debate every five years to renew and consider those definitions is too much to ask for, especially when we compare that with the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which comes up for renewal every year. At least such a debate would give hon. Members who are not members of the Intelligence and Security Committee the opportunity to debate the functions of the security services.
      A debate every five years would at least give the public a little more confidence in the work of the security services. At the moment such confidence is even lacking in the legitimate work of those services. The Government should improve parliamentary oversight by offering important definitions of the three terms included in my amendment.
      I am sorry to note that during the passage of the Bill the Government have not accepted any amendments bar a minor one. They pushed the Bill through Committee and

      301
      presumably they will do likewise in another place. The Government should be more flexible and I hope that they will accept my modest amendment or, if not, will accept a similar one in another place.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Before I deal with the four amendments before the House, I should like to make some general observations that apply to those amendments, but are not particular to them.
      When talking about the functions and the roles of the agencies, as we are in the context of the amendments, it is important to set the debate within the framework of the definitions and the checks and balances that are provided by the Bill and the general framework of the law. I would therefore like to remind the House of the framework within which the agencies operate.
      To start with, clause 1 does two things. First, it defines the functions of the intelligence service and defines the circumstances in which those functions can be exercised. Secondly, in relation to interference with property or with wireless telegraphy, it provides circumstances in which applications must be made, for approval, to the Secretary of State—that is the warrant procedure. It further provides that acts that would be unlawful by reason of the Criminal Justice Act 1948—acts done abroad—can be rendered lawful only if they are authorised by the clause 7 authorisation procedure. It provides the mechanisms whereby complaints to the tribunal can be made. It sets up and establishes a commissioner whose function and role is to oversee the exercise by the Secretary of State of the clause 5 warranty and clause 7 authorisation procedures. It creates the oversight committee, the remit of which is set out in clause 10.
      Equally importantly, all the functions of the agencies are regulated by the ordinary law of the country, save and to the extent that it might otherwise be relaxed, either by the terms of the Bill or—we are speaking also of the Security Service Act 1989—by some other ordinary operation of law.
      That is the framework in which the agencies operate. I adopt what my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said about the liability of members of the agency to the ordinary criminal law. If the members of the agencies do something that contravenes the ordinary criminal law—
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Without the authority of a warrant.
      Mr. Hogg: I was going to make the point. Unless it is covered by one of the procedures that I have been referring to, they are liable to appear before an ordinary criminal court.
      Mr. Rogers: The Minister sets out and displays a structure of accountability and checks and balances and he is putting it in that context, but—
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is part of the Bill.
      Mr. Rogers: It is absolutely true—it is part of the Bill and we are coming to it. All those procedures are in a tight ring of secrecy. The Secretary of State appoints the members; the Secretary of State screens the information; a report is made to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. It is nonsense to suggest that those are accountable structures, especially to Parliament.
      Mr. Hogg: I do not agree. To start with the last argument that I made, if an act contravenes the ordinary criminal law of the country the act complained of will be investigated by the police. They act independently. If, for example—[Interruption.] If it is warranted, it is covered by the clause 5 procedure, provided that the clause 5 procedure applies. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to focus on the fact that the clause 5 procedure applies only to cases involving entry to or interference with property or wireless telegraphy, and has nothing to do with the general points that he was making about murder and physical injury to individuals and so on. Insofar as those acts are done within the jurisdiction, they are criminal unless another defence applies, such as legitimate self-defence.
      That is the general framework within which one operates. I shall now discuss the four amendments that the House is debating. Amendment No. 3 is designed to confine the competence of the intelligence service to circumstances where it can be said that there is a threat to national security. I believe that that is unduly restrictive and I would not commend it to the House. One of the functions of the intelligence service is to further and advance the national interest. Such a purpose can well exist even in the absence of a threat to national security. Let me illustrate that, because I hope that the House will be persuaded by the argument.
      It is obviously in the country's interests to find out as much as we can about the military capacity of various countries or the terrorist capacity of various organisations. That interest might—probably does—exist even in the absence of a direct threat. We have every interest in trying to discover the attitude towards various policy issues of various Governments or organisations in the middle east, although one could not, in all honesty, say that there was a threat, or an obvious and direct threat, to the national interest.
      7.45 pm
      We have every interest in investigating proliferation—channels of proliferation; risks of proliferation; where arms come from; where they go to. One would often be pushed to say that that constituted a direct threat to the United Kingdom. We have every interest in trying to identify the stability of various Governments, friendly and unfriendly, and it will be difficult to say, in that context, that there will always be a risk to our national interest.
      It is unduly restrictive to confine the competence of the intelligence service to those circumstances in which it can be said that there exists a threat to the national interest.
      Mr. Rogers: I cannot follow the Minister's argument when he says that the Bill says that the function of the Secret Intelligence Service—I presume that the purpose of the Bill is to delineate the functions—is to further and advance the national interest. There is no mention of that in the Bill. It mentions "national security" in clause 1(2)(a) and then it speaks about
      "interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom".
      However, for the Minister to justify his argument under a general term of national interest is to create another dimension in addition to national security.
      Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman may not have been following the argument as closely as I might have wished him to do—or perhaps I am at fault. There is a difference between saying that competence exists only where there is a threat, and saying that competence exists

      303
      where the purpose of what is being done is to further the national interest. It is true that I have taken a broad phrase because otherwise I spend a lot of time summarising the meaning of sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and, for the purposes of this discussion, I am subsuming (a), (b) and (c) into a general phrase.
      The difficulty with amendment No. 3 is that it allows the intelligence service to act only when there is a threat, yet there are many circumstances in which I suspect that 80 or 90 per cent. of Members of the House—not that there are many Members here to make that assessment—would wish the intelligence service to act even if one could not, in honesty, say that there was a threat.
      Mr. Cohen: The Minister has made an interesting statement and he has broadened the scope of national interest by saying that the intelligence service is furthering it. Will he say, for example, that the coup in which the British were involved, which brought down Mussadeq in Iran and put the Shah into power, was furthering the national interest? Also, who would have made that decision, according to the logic of the Minister's argument?
      Mr. Hogg: Both sides agreed in Committee that we would not discuss specific cases or alleged incidents. The hon. Gentleman says that I am furthering, or at least developing, the responsibility of the intelligence service, but I assure him that I am not. Many times on Second Reading and in Committee I argued, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, that the purposes of the intelligence service include the furthering, the forwarding or whatever word one wishes to use, of the national interest, and that they are not confined to those circumstances in which there can be said to be a threat.
      The second of the amendments relates to the question of economic well-being. The amendment contemplates—it was not spoken to in the debate, so I will be brief—that the word "substantially" should be placed in front of the phrase "economic well-being". That has real disadvantages and no counter-balancing advantages. In promoting that argument, I first return to the general constraints which I have mentioned and which I will not repeat now. Secondly, the intelligence service responds to tasking by the Joint Intelligence Committee. Thirdly, when resources are scarce there is a natural reluctance on the part of any agency to waste its time on trivial matters. The agency would be concerned only with matters of substance; it would not be concerned with trivial matters.
      Such matters would include, for instance, the price and availability of commodities, financial and monetary policies of countries that might have an impact on the United Kingdom, activities of individuals abroad that might discredit financial institutions in the United Kingdom and, perhaps, the promotion of British economic interests abroad, in a variety of ways.
      Mr. Chris Mullin rose—
      Mr. Hogg: I see that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is becoming restless; I give way to him.
      Mr. Mullin: The Minister may wish to consider another example which seems fairly prevalent. We have developed
      304
      a habit of spying on foreign companies that compete with British companies, and rewarding British companies with titbits of information picked up through GCHQ or elsewhere in return for unspecified favours. Is that justifiable?
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to comment on allegations, which I will not do. The question is whether particular activities fall within the functions defined in clause 1, and the circumstances in which those functions can be exercised.
      Mr. Mullin rose—
      Mr. Hogg: I will give way, but I shall not add to what I have just said.
      Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister forget about specific examples and simply deal hypothetically with the example that I gave? Would such action be justifiable in the terms of the Bill?
      Mr. Hogg: Come, come: the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that my general attitude is not to discuss hypothetical cases, save in the most general context. Although it might be fun to do that, I do not think that it would be a good way in which to spend the House's time.
      I have described the type of circumstances in which economic well-being is an interest to be forwarded or protected. The question that then arises is whether the word "substantially" improves the Bill in any way. I do not believe that it does. The concept of what is and what is not substantial is, of course, subjective, and I do not see how it can add to the Bill—although it might make the lives of individual officers rather more difficult.
      Moreover, many of the activities that I have described —which I suspect the House would regard as desirable —might not be said to have substantial significance when judged against the weight and size of the British economy. We would find ourselves precluding desirable activities that satisfied all other criteria because, in relation to the weight and size of the British economy, they could not be described as substantial.
      Mr. Rogers: The Minister said that officers would be placed in a very difficult position. I understand that the joint intelligence machinery tasks MI6 to carry out the functions involved; surely it would be able to gauge whether certain activities were substantially in the country's economic interests. The purpose of the amendment is solely to tighten the rules on what the service can do and to ensure that it carries out what the Minister has rightly described as large-scale generic functions.
      Mr. Hogg: That is not true, because we are talking about a subjective test—which, moreover, might not be fulfilled in any particular enterprise, because of the relationship between the economic activity being investigated and the overall size of the British economy. As there is a mismatch between the two, the test would not be satisfied—although most people would be pleased to support the objective.
      Amendment No. 6—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Brownhills has spoken from time to time—is defective and should be rejected, although the Opposition Members who tabled it have tried to take account of some of the arguments that I advanced in Committee. First, if the amendment were passed, the`

      305
      intelligence service could not intervene in respect of threats or attacks against employees of British companies abroad who were not citizens of the United Kingdom. That is a bit peculiar. Secondly, we all have an interest in fighting terrorism, but in its present form the amendment would prevent us from intervening in—or assisting, for instance, the French Government in frustrating—an act of terrorism in France. I find that difficult to accept.
      My hon. Friend the Whip has just entered the Chamber. I feel a little nervous when I see him; does he want me to stop? If so, I shall be brief.
      My third objection is this. Crime is pretty international; there are many criminal acts in which we would want the intelligence service to become involved, but which do not have a direct or immediate impact on the United Kingdom or its citizens. Good examples are the smuggling of arms and drugs, child prostitution and international pornography: we have a legitimate interest in the investigation of each of those classes of crime, in the obtaining of information and, in many circumstances, attempting to interrupt them, but in many cases it would be impossible to say that their immediate consequence would be an impact on the United Kingdom or its citizens. They would therefore be outwith the provisions of the amendment.
      Finally, let me comment on a point made by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Brownhills. [Interruption.] He did support it.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: My constituency is Aldridge-Brownhills.
      Mr. Hogg: I am terribly sorry. I am out of practice: I should hear my hon. Friend speak more often.
      What hon. Members are saying is basically this: "We cannot ourselves define the various concepts, but we want the Government to do it by way of an order-making power. Furthermore, we want to debate it every five years." That is the broad effect of the amendment.
      I think that it is extremely difficult to define national security in statutory terms; incidentally, I think the same about economic well-being. My view is reinforced by what the Commissioner of the Security Services, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, said in his 1990 report. Effectively, he said that it was very difficult to define national security in statutory terms, although it could be recognised easily enough.
      Labour has encountered the problem in the past. The sex and race discrimination legislation of the mid-1970s refers to national security without giving any definitions or amplifications, because it is so difficult to define. I therefore do not think that it would be at all easy to secure a comprehensive definition of those two phrases which would be satisfactory.
      I accept that the position is rather different when it comes to serious crime, which can sometimes—and for some purposes—be defined. It was done in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in—I think—the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and in other legislation. It should not be forgotten, however, that in this instance we would also have to consider crime committed abroad, because that comes within the definition. I do not think that it would serve a serious purpose; serious crime is easy enough to recognise, even if it is not defined.
      Let me make two more points. First, I am against order-making powers and I am rather surprised that my
      306
      hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is not against them as well. As hon. Members and my hon. Friend know full well, an order laid before the House is not subject to amendment—it has to be accepted all or not at all. Of course, that is just what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is anxious that we should not do in relation to Northern Ireland. The fact that a draft must be placed before the House and debated before the order is made is an attempt to mitigate the defects associated with the order-making procedure, but it does not solve it.
      8 pm
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: As I understand it, the Procedure Committee is at this moment reporting, or has already reported, on how orders may be made in other ways, but that was not my point. I was querying whether there are to be limitations. The remit outlined in the Bill is very large. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the definitions to which he referred are extremely difficult and they have exercised minds considerably, which is why I come back to the issue of limitation—what the services may not do. This is a compendium Bill but security service legislation exists in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Limits can be imposed, which was the reason for my general support for the amendment. Lawful dissent was one of the issues that I raised but which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister did not cover, although perhaps he is coming to it. What constitutes the foreign policy of the United Kingdom? Would Mr. William Cash and Sir Teddy Taylor be objects of interest to the services? Are their activities lawful dissent? Should they be limited under the Bill? As I understand it, if the Secretary of State, using his warrant, set out to seek information about them, the Bill would allow him to do so.
      Mr. Hogg: There are various ways in which one can try to control the exercise of given powers by the agencies. We have tried a mixed approach by defining the powers and subjecting the exercise of powers to various controls. It was for that reason that I began with general observations, pointing out the definition of the powers and the circumstances in which they could be exercised, and went on to speak about the complaints procedure, the clause 5 and clause 7 procedures, the commissioner's role, the ordinary criminal law and the oversight committee. The Bill creates a range of controls, checks and balances which impact on the functions and the circumstances in which the functions are exercisable.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills was concerned—at least, I thought that he was, although he was perhaps being more humorous than I realised—that his acts a propos the Maastricht Bill might fall within the scope of the intelligence service. He mentioned only the circumstances in which the functions were exercisable, but he will, of course, have been the first to note that the functions outlined in clause 1—the underpinning provisions—relate to
      "the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands".
      Although I might wish on occasion that my hon. Friend was outside the British Isles, I have to say that he does not satisfy that criterion. Therefore, the circumstances do not even begin to apply in the case that he postulated because the functions do not exist in that case.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: The two Acts to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred are linked and I

      307
      accept what he said about accountability and various checks and balances, but the point is to assist Ministers' accountability and to identify responsibility—I believe that that must be at the heart of the Bill. Mr. Cash, or my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, was in Paris on Friday launching a new programme. In this small world, it is easy for British citizens to gather together quite ordinarily in, for example, Paris. I wanted to ensure that the Bill was not drafted in such a way that it could apply in that case, which is why I was querying its limitations.
      Mr. Hogg: Looking at the smiling face of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and the rather less smiling face of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), I am conscious of the fact that the House wishes to get on with its business.
      I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that, although there may be arguments against the Bill, his is not one of them. The suggestion that he and our hon. Friends will be chased by the intelligence service is not credible.
      Mr. Rogers: I am afraid that the Minister has not dealt with the arguments in favour of the amendments. I reiterate the fact that we agree that the security and intelligence services must continue to be effective, but, as I said at the outset, that has to be set against the background of the application of the rule of law. The amendments are intended to focus the functions and capabilities of the intelligence services.
      The Minister has refuted our arguments primarily by saying that the Bill contains a series of checks and balances. He said that there was a complaints procedure, a tribunal, a commission and an oversight committee so we need not worry about the functions that we give to the intelligent services. He said that it did not matter how broadly they were based because there were checks and balances. However, as we said in Committee ad nauseam, and as we shall continue to say, it is a completely closed circle.
      Through the Joint Intelligence Committee, the Secretary of State tasks the secret services. If necessary, he issues the warrant for them to operate outside the law. They report to him, and he reports to the oversight committee and launders any information before doing so. The Prime Minister also has the function of filtering material and even the heads of the secret services have the right to scrutinise material before it goes to the oversight committee. If the Minister thinks that that is an effective check and balance against the functions set out in clause 1, I am afraid that he is living in cloud cuckoo land.
      It is no good the Minister saying, as he did whenever he was challenged on specific examples—by, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—that history begins tomorrow and never mind what happened in the past. We have seen how the services operated in the past and we now have the opportunity to make the necessary changes in the Bill. Why not make those changes now so that there would be no need for orders? The Bill could have been drafted more sensibly.
      We have always said that clause 1 was ambiguous, which is why we tabled reasonable amendments. The Minister cannot get away with saying that we do not need to accept the word "substantially" because the secret
      308
      intelligence services would not be interested in trivia. Why not? Because they do not have the money. Presumably, if they did have the money, they would be interested in trivia. However, they should not have the right to interfere except where it is "substantially" in the interests of Great Britain's economy or general well-being.
      The Minister said that drug smuggling and child pornography, among other things, do not have a
      "serious effect on law and order",
      to cite amendment No. 6. I am afraid that the Minister is wrong because organised crime is funded largely from drug smuggling and drug peddling. There are many ancillaries to organised crime which fund these activities and which have a serious effect on law and order in the United Kingdom.
      These are appropriate amendments and they properly introduce the concept of natural justice into the Bill. For that reason, we shall press them to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 272.

      Division No. 222]

      [8.08 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Hall, Mike

      Ainger, Nick

      Hanson, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Hinchliffe, David

      Austin-Walker, John

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Barnes, Harry

      Home Robertson, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Bell, Stuart

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Benton, Joe

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Boyes, Roland

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Bradley, Keith

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Burden, Richard

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Canavan, Dennis

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Lewis, Terry

      Clapham, Michael

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Coffey, Ann

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Cohen, Harry

      McMaster, Gordon

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McWilliam, John

      Cox, Tom

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Mandelson, Peter

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Marek, Dr John

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Darling, Alistair

      Maxton, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Michael, Alun

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

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Dewar, Donald

      Morley, Elliot

      Dixon, Don

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Dowd, Jim

      Mudie, George

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Mullin, Chris

      Eastham, Ken

      O'Brien, Michael (N W"kshire)

      Enright, Derek

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Etherington, Bill

      Parry, Robert

      Flynn, Paul

      Patchett, Terry

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Pickthall, Colin

      Fraser, John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Galloway, George

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Raynsford, Nick

      Godsiff, Roger

      Redmond, Martin

      Gordon, Mildred

      Reid, Dr John

      Graham, Thomas

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Rogers, Allan

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Gunnell, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      309

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wallace, James

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Warded, Gareth (Gower)

      Simpson, Alan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Snape, Peter

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Soley, Clive

      Spellar, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Eric Illsley and

      Stott, Roger

      Mr. John Cummings.

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Dover, Den

      Alexander, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Amess, David

      Eggar, Tim

      Arbuthnot, James

      Elletson, Harold

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Ashby, David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Atkins, Robert

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Evennett, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Faber, David

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Baldry, Tony

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Beggs, Roy

      Forman, Nigel

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Forth, Eric

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Booth, Hartley

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Boswell, Tim

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bowden, Andrew

      French, Douglas

      Bowis, John

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gallie, Phil

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Brazier, Julian

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bright, Graham

      Garnier, Edward

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gill, Christopher

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gorst, John

      Burns, Simon

      Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Butcher, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butler, Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hague, William

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Churchill, Mr

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Clappison, James

      Hannam, Sir John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Harris, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hawkins, Nick

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hawksley, Warren

      Congdon, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Conway, Derek

      Hendry, Charles

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For"st)

      Hicks, Robert

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Couchman, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Cran, James

      Horam, John

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Devlin, Tim

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hunter, Andrew

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      310

      Jack, Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Sackville, Tom

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knapman, Roger

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir"m E'st"n)

      Shersby, Michael

      Knox, Sir David

      Sims, Roger

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Legg, Barry

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Leigh, Edward

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lidington, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lightbown, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Sproat, Iain

      Lord, Michael

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Luff, Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stephen, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Stern, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      Madel, Sir David

      Sweeney, Walter

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sykes, John

      Malone, Gerald

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mans, Keith

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marland, Paul

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Thomason, Roy

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mates, Michael

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thurnham, Peter

      Merchant, Piers

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Mills, Iain

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tracey, Richard

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Trend, Michael

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Viggers, Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walden, George

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Watts, John

      Norris, Steve

      Wells, Bowen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Page, Richard

      Whitney, Ray

      Paice, James

      Whittingdale, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Pawsey, James

      Willetts, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f"ld)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Richards, Rod

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robathan, Andrew

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 5

      WARRANTS: GENERAL
      Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 47, leave out
      'issued by the Secretary of State under this section'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 33, in page 4, line 10, after 'Act', insert
      'in so far as they relate solely to the protection of national security and the economic well-being of the United Kingdom'.
      No. 34, in page 4, line 12, after 'above', insert
      'which are exercised in pursuance of the objectives mentioned in subsection 2(a) and (b) of that section'.
      No. 35, in page 4, line 14, after 'above', insert
      'which are exercised in pursuance of the objectives mentioned in section 3(2)(a) and (b) above'.
      No. 36, in page 4, line 22, at end insert—
      '() A judge of the High Court or Court of Session may, on an application made by the Security Service, the Intelligence Service or GCHQ, issue a warrant under this section authorising the taking, subject to subsection (3) below, of such action as is specified in the warrant in respect of any property so specified or in respect of wireless telegraphy so specified if he—

      (a) thinks it necessary for the action to be taken on the ground that it is likely to be of substantial value in assisting, as the case may be,—

      (i) the Security Service in carrying out any of its functions under the 1989 Act in so far as they relate solely to the prevention and detection of serious crime, or

      (ii) the Intelligence Service in carrying out any of its functions under section 1 above which are exercised in pursuance of the objectives mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of that section; or

      (iii) GCHQ in carrying out any function which falls within section 3(1)(a) above which are exercised in pursuance of the objectives mentioned in section 3(2)(c) above; and

      (b) is satisfied that what the action seeks to achieve cannot reasonably be achieved by other means; and

      (c) is satisfied that satisfactory arrangements are in force under section 2(2)(a) of the 1989 Act (duties of the Director-General of the Security Service), section 2(2)(a) above or section 4(2)(a) above with respect to the disclosure of information obtained by virtue of this section and that any information obtained under the warrant will be subject to those arrangements.'.

      No. 18, in clause 6, page 4, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 5 and insert—

      '(1) A warrant shall, unless renewed, cease to have effect at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which it was issued.

      (2) An application for a warrant from a court shall be heard ex parte.

      (3) If at any time the Security Service, the Intelligence Service or GCHQ is satisfied that the action authorised by the warrant is no longer necessary it shall apply to the Court or the Secretary of State as appropriate for the warrant to be cancelled'.

      Mrs. Prentice: Clause 5 provides for the Secretary of State to issue—on an application by the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ—warrants authorising action in respect of property or wireless telegraphy. We believe that it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to be the arbiter in the issuing of warrants.
      I served as a magistrate in Inner London for many years, and was called upon from time to time by the Metropolitan police to issue search warrants. Such requests were made in court or at my own home, sometimes late at night. There have been occasions when the validity of warrants signed by magistrates has been called into question.
      312
      The rules were changed to ensure that warrants authorised by magistrates are properly signed and record the correct time to ensure that the police or others do not misuse that procedure. That is done not just to protect the person against whom the warrant is issued but to safeguard the prosecution. There is nothing worse than for a case to fail because a warrant was not properly signed or other technicalities were not correctly observed. I have great sympathy with anyone who is required to sign a warrant and to ensure that it is fully justified.
      The suggestion that the Secretary of State should sign warrants causes me concern. That Minister is involved in the activities of the security services, so cannot be considered independent of them, and an adequate check on the warrant is essential. In constitutional terms, any Secretary of State—and this is a non-party political point —is part of the Executive in the same way as the Security Service.
      In criminal cases, warrants are generally authorised by a magistrate before a search of someone's house is lawful. Often, that authorisation is done in open court. It is rare, rightly, for a warrant to be authorised elsewhere. Right hon. and hon. Members and people outside might think that a judge is not necessarily the best person to authorise a warrant, because it is too sensitive a task; that judges have their own views of society and may be prejudiced by them. However, there are examples of the courts being charged with dealing with matters of secrecy reasonably well. The judge in the Matrix Churchill case was able to examine sensitive material and to ensure that it was properly adjudicated.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: There may be some misunderstanding. I have carefully examined the amendments, and it is clear that they relate only to those applications that are founded on the serious crime category, and that it is only in respect of that category that it is suggested by the amendments that the warrant should be issued by a judge. They do not relate to the other two classes.
      Mrs. Prentice: I am trying to make the point, in relation to the principle behind the issuing of warrants, that it is questionable whether a politician who is part of the Executive is necessarily the appropriate person to make warrants available.
      Mr. Rogers: The Minister is not following the amendments properly. Amendment No. 36 seeks to insert a new subsection at the end of clause 5, which relates to
      "the prevention of detection of serious crime."
      That is the generic clause covering the issuing of warrants. Amendment No. 15 seeks to delete from clause 5(1) the words
      "issued by the Secretary of State under this section."
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be tiresome because we can always debate the principle, but the amendments relate only to applications in respect of serious crime. I am prepared to debate the generality, but I am faced with a narrow class of amendments and it would be a pity if there were any misunderstanding.
      Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that we—like the Government, normally —can get the drafting wrong, but amendment No. 36—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order for me?
      Mr. Rogers: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, I allowed the hon. Gentleman to continue a debate across the Floor of the House with the Minister. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, he must make it now, to the Chair.
      Mr. Rogers: My purpose is to bring the debate in order, because the Minister suggested that our amendments apply only to a particular aspect of the Bill. My point of order is that our amendments do not relate solely to clause 5(3) —which begins,
      "A warrant authorising the taking of action in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime"—
      but to the end of clause 5, where we seek to insert a new subsection beginning:
      "A judge of the High Court or Court of Session".
      As amendment No. 15 seeks to delete from clause 5(1) the words
      "issued by the Secretary of State under this section",
      it was necessary to introduce later in clause 5 the provision for a warrant to be issued by a High Court or Court of Session judge.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has been in order so far. I would have intervened if it had strayed out of order.
      Mrs. Prentice: I am not entirely sure whether the House now knows exactly where it stands.
      8.30 pm
      One of the fundamental principles of human rights is respect for the rule of law, and I am concerned that that principle should be set out in the Bill. It was argued in Committee that if someone objected to the issuing of a warrant, he could go to a tribunal. Unfortunately, that does not satisfy the fundamental human rights with which I am concerned. It is important that the individual is aware before a tribunal is involved that he can challenge what is happening. Once he appears before a tribunal, the warrant has been issued and the telephone tapping or other surveillance has taken place. At that stage it is difficult to put things right.
      If we allow the Secretary of State to issue warrants to authorise various actions, we shall fall short of the provisions set out in article 6 of the European convention on human rights. If we are signatories to the convention, we should make some attempt to go along with its provisions. As I have said, the courts are capable of dealing with matters of secrecy.
      Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends say that the judges are political in a sense and may make decisions accordingly. Indeed, they have made some incredibly bad decisions. A Labour Government would entrench human rights; they would introduce a Bill of Rights. I would like to see a written constitution to entrench the rights of individual citizens. The judges would have to comply with it, and that would make a great difference. I look to the future to see that system apply rather than the present one.
      If we leave appeal until the time when the tribunal is involved, there is no possible redress. That means that the complainant will have no access to information and will not know why he is in some way threatening national security. The tribunal can decide only whether the service has reasonable grounds for its actions. There will not be an adequate check on the Secretary of State when it comes to the decision to issue a warrant. That is why we feel that going before a High Court judge and ensuring that
      314
      decisions are made in open court will protect the individual citizen as well as protecting the security services by ensuring that they have proper means whereby they can continue with acts that would otherwise be illegal.
      We are talking of acts that would be unlawful without the support of a warrant. That is crucial to our consideration of these matters. If we allow people to participate in unlawful acts for the very best of reasons —national security—we must be sure that they do so under the strictest provisions. It is for these reasons that I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I do not know whether the amendments are correctly drawn and I am happy to accept the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on that matter. All the matters that we are considering can be corrected when the Bill returns to the other place. My right hon. and learned Friend can give an undertaking that they will be addressed there.
      It is unthinkable that warrants should not be issued and authorised by a judge. That is the first principle. It is outrageous to think that a Minister should himself determine what should be lawful and by his own warrant attest that that which is unlawful is lawful. The structural problem is that essentially a Minister's acccountability is to himself. There should be judicial determination.
      This is a land of laws. The history of England and the United Kingdom is built on those laws, and in those laws we find our defence. Judicial intervention is proper and appropriate.
      We talk about the security of individuals and whether they are to be trusted. The very people who we regard dubiously today may be Ministers of the Crown tomorrow. The man on the Opposition Benches who we suspect may be the very Foreign Secretary who issues the warrants that we are discussing. We must not be so suspicious of ourselves internally that we exclude a great democracy. After all, these systems are designed to defend our democracy.
      Part of our democracy and defence is through the courts, where there is an independent judiciary. That is why it is entirely respectable to argue that there should be judicial intervention and that warrants should be issued on the authority of a justice of this land, commissioned by the Queen, due process and so on. If that is not the position, everything in the Bill will be at the behest of the Government of the day alone.
      As things stand, the Government appoint everyone in the system. They appoint the commissioner and they appoint the committee of parliamentarians. I do not, of course, want to give the impression that these matters are related. I recognise that they work in their own way, but they do not reinforce accountability and identify responsibility. That is why it is important that these processes should be open to the courts. It may be that the courts will find a way of entering the arena, but the relevant provisions are closely drafted. I would like to think that such a distinguished lawyer as my right hon. and learned Friend would appreciate the merits of the courts.
      I understand that there are difficulties, one of which is Matrix Churchill. Judges seem to be far too independent and sometimes rather inquiring. But that is what we want them to be, and that is their function. If we cannot trust the judges, who do we trust in this system? We need a balance. Not everything should be in the hands of the Executive and of one-party government. That is why we talk about

      315
      accountable government. It is important to recognise the judicial tradition. As I have said, this is a land of laws, and within those laws we find our freedoms.
      I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will appreciate what I am saying. I am sure that he has charged people for giving similar advice in his time. I hope that he will accept the spirit behind the amendments and ensure that in the other place—no less a place—there is recognition of the validity of the argument.
      Mr. Cohen: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice). There should be judicial authorisation when it comes to the issuing of warrants.
      It was reported in The Guardian on 1 April—I hope that it was not an April Fool's joke—that the Home Secretary had authorised 883 telephone tapping warrants and that the Secretary of State for Scotland had issued 112. Apparently, the Home Secretary had authorised 105 mail openings and the Secretary of State for Scotland had authorised one. The article did not tell us what the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had authorised in respect of mail openings or telephone tapping. There was no attempt to present the broad numbers. It would be useful for the House to have that information. It would also be useful to know whether the warrants related to one person or whether one warrant related to many people. Such information would be worth having. Was there judicial authorisation for any of the warrants to which I have
      referred or were they all issued purely on ministerial decisions?
      The warrant system is a mess. We must bear in mind the opportunity to gather information about people and retain it under the Data Protection Act 1984. The Lindop committee reported that data protection problems posed even greater problems than the systems that are maintained by the police. It recommended that
      "any exemption provided…in the interests of national security should be strictly circumscribed"
      and that
      "any necessary exemption should be granted personally by the Home Secretary."
      It was suggested that we should apply the best practice from abroad, and those practices involved the judiciary. Instead we got section 27 of the Data Protection Act which enabled an exemption on national security grounds. As a result, the security services can collect information on people without the need for warrants that apply in other Acts such as the Interception of Communications Act 1985 and the Security Service Act 1989.
      We have three methods of obtaining information and they all have different aspects. The security services may not like a Minister's decision. A Minister may not wish to sign a warrant. For example, the President of the Board of Trade said that he did not want to sign the public interest immunity certificate in relation to the Matrix Churchill employees. A Minister may think that there is not a good enough reason for telephone tapping or whatever. The security services can take the same action under another guise, and can do so retrospectively. They can collect the information, then get the Minister to sign a certificate under section 27 of the Data Protection Act. They can say that it was all authorised retrospectively. That cannot be done under the other Acts.
      The issuing of warrants for the collection of information should be brought together under one system. That system
      316
      should have judicial involvement, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East and by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). That is the purpose of the amendment. The Minister should address that, otherwise the system is a free-for-all and the security services can do what they like. The structure of oversight referred to earlier is meaningless in that context.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I invite the Opposition not to press the amendment to a Division because I assure them that it is defective and that the only provision for judicial review of the warrant procedure relates to the serious crime category. However, I am prepared to debate the general principle, if that is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The real question before the House is whether in the three categories the warrants should be issued by the Secretary of State or by a judge. I strongly urge the House to accept that the warrants should be issued by a judge —[Interruption.] Forgive me, I mean the Secretary of State. I was thinking of a suitable compliment to pay my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The warrant should be issued by the Secretary of State.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an impassioned speech in favour of judicial intervention. He fails to grasp fully that this is not a judicial process. It is not a judicial process because the concepts are administrative and policy based and are not judicial. One can see if one looks at the categories involved—they can be found in clause 1(2)(a), (b) and (c)—that they are policy issues. There are the interests of national security with regard to defence and foreign policy and the interests of economic well-being. Those two categories are clearly policy issues. A judge is in no way qualified to determine policy issues of that sort.
      Hon. Members might say that judges are competent to consider questions of serious crime. Yes, they are. But, serious crime contemplated by this Bill extends abroad. The process envisaged in the one amendment that bites is not really a judicial process. It is an ex parte application without any consideration of the arguments or of the person who will be affected by the warrant. The amendment simply calls for a question of policy to be judged by a judge who does not have any experience in the policy areas and does not have the opportunity of hearing the person who will be affected by the warrant. It is an administrative and executive process, not a judicial process.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Is not the argument self serving? The House is trying to obtain proper definitions by which the judge can measure whether a warrant is appropriate. The Minister rejected proper definitions and then said that it would not be appropriate precisely because he has rejected the proper definitions. That is what I call a self-serving argument. One can get round that by properly defining the limiting clauses for which we have argued before. The judge could then intervene.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend does less justice to his case than he should. The problem is one of concepts, not of definition. It is not a judicial issue. National security with reference to defence and foreign policy and economic well-being are not judicial issues.
      Mr. Rogers: The issue of a warrant is a judicial process. The issue of a warrant allows someone to act outside the law. The general principles of the functions and abilities of the secret intelligence services are not in question. We are asking someone to act in a judicial capacity by issuing a warrant to allow someone to operate outside the law.
      Mr. Hogg: The issue of a warrant is sometimes a judicial process and sometimes it is not. Many warrants are issued in ways other than through a judge or a magistrate. The point relates not to the issue of the warrant but to the circumstances in which the warrant can properly be issued. That is a question of policy and is not a judicial issue.
      Mr. Rogers rose—
      Mr. Hogg: I want to finish this.
      A judge who is asked to issue a warrant has to be satisfied that it is in the interests of national security with regard to defence and foreign policy or in the interests of economic well-being. I have appeared before many judges during my life and very few, if any, have either the competence or expertise to deal with such matters of policy. That is not a criticism, but a statement of fact. There would be a submission made to them by officials with responsibility, drawing attention to policy issues. However, those issues are wholly outside the framework of practice and experience of judges.
      Checks and balances are provided in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills may shake his head, but that is the case. For example, the Secretary of State is mightily constrained and the commissioner oversees what happens. Under the amendment, in so far as it bites at all, there is no review, no appeal, no subsequent comment and no right of representation. If one is talking about checks and balances and the preservation of human liberties, one does better under the Bill than under the amendment.
      Mr. Rogers: I would happily accept the Minister's admonition that we should withdraw the amendment if I could understand why we should. I still think that our amendments are valid. I hear what he says about amendment No.36 relating only to the prevention and detection of serious crime; it does stipulate that a warrant should be issued
      "subject to subsection (3) below",
      which relates to serious crime. That is not to say that the whole amendment is invalid.
      I could not follow the Minister's general answer at all. He says that the issuing of warrants is not a judicial act. But the general terms and circumstances under which the secret intelligence services can operate are surely encapsulated in clause 1, and we cannot ask the Secretary of State to issue warrants to allow the services to act in quasi-executive way. The whole point of a warrant is to allow intelligence operators to act outside the law in pursuance of the provisions of clause 1.
      As warrant issuing is indeed a judicial act, I cannot see why judges, not the Secretary of State, should not be allowed to issue them. The purpose of the amendments is to break the circle. The secret services are tasked by the Joint Intelligence Committee and the Secretary of State, who will then give them a warrant—in the Government's submission—to act outside the law. The services in turn report back to the same machinery of government and there is thus no true accountability.
      318
      If a High Court judge is involved in at least this one process, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, an element of democracy will be introduced to the process. That is why we shall press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 271.

      Division No. 223]

      [8.51 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Austin-Walker, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Barnes, Harry

      Lewis, Terry

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Bell, Stuart

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Benton, Joe

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Macdonald, Calum

      Boyes, Roland

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Burden, Richard

      McMaster, Gordon

      Caborn, Richard

      McWilliam, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Madden, Max

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Mahon, Alice

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Mandelson, Peter

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Clapham, Michael

      Maxton, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Michael, Alun

      Cohen, Harry

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Connarty, Michael

      Mudie, George

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Mullin, Chris

      Corston, Ms Jean

      O'Brien, Michael (N W"kshire)

      Cousins, Jim

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Cox, Tom

      Parry, Robert

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Patchett, Terry

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dafis, Cynog

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Darling, Alistair

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Primarolo, Dawn

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

      Randall, Stuart

      Dewar, Donald

      Raynsford, Nick

      Dixon, Don

      Redmond, Martin

      Dowd, Jim

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Eastham, Ken

      Rogers, Allan

      Enright, Derek

      Rowlands, Ted

      Etherington, Bill

      Ruddock, Joan

      Faulds, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Fraser, John

      Simpson, Alan

      Fyfe, Maria

      Skinner, Dennis

      Garrett, John

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

      Gerrard, Neil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Spellar, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Stott, Roger

      Graham, Thomas

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Wallace, James

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Gunnell, John

      Watson, Mike

      Hall, Mike

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Hanson, David

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Winnick, David

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Wise, Audrey

      Home Robertson, John

      Worthington, Tony

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mr. John Cummings and

      Janner, Greville

      Mr. Eric Illsley.

      Noes

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Alexander, Richard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Amess, David

      Forman, Nigel

      Arbuthnot, James

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Forth, Eric

      Ashby, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Atkinson, David (Bour"mouth E)

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      French, Douglas

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Gallie, Phil

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Batiste, Spencer

      Garnier, Edward

      Beggs, Roy

      Gill, Christopher

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gorst, John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Booth, Hartley

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Boswell, Tim

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bowis, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Hague, William

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Brazier, Julian

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hannam, Sir John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Harris, David

      Burns, Simon

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burt, Alistair

      Hawksley, Warren

      Butcher, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Butler, Peter

      Hendry, Charles

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hicks, Robert

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Cash, William

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Churchill, Mr

      Horam, John

      Clappison, James

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Congdon, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For"st)

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jessel, Toby

      Cormack, Patrick

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cran, James

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knapman, Roger

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, Sir David

      Dover, Den

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan, Alan

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Legg, Barry

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Leigh, Edward

      Eggar, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Elletson, Harold

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lidington, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lord, Michael

      Evennett, David

      Luff, Peter

      Faber, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      320

      MacKay, Andrew

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Maclean, David

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Soames, Nicholas

      Madel, Sir David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Malone, Gerald

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Mans, Keith

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Marland, Paul

      Spring, Richard

      Marlow, Tony

      Sproat, Iain

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mates, Michael

      Stephen, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Stern, Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      Merchant, Piers

      Streeter, Gary

      Mills, Iain

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sykes, John

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thomason, Roy

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Norris, Steve

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Page, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Paice, James

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Patnick, Irvine

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Viggers, Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walden, George

      Pawsey, James

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waller, Gary

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rathbone, Tim

      Watts, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wells, Bowen

      Richards, Rod

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Whitney, Ray

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Whittingdale, John

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Willetts, David

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Sackville, Tom

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Wood, Timothy

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Shersby, Michael

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      Sims, Roger

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 10

      THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE
      Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 7, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 38 and insert—
      '(a) who shall be drawn both from the members of the
      House of Commons and from the members of.—[Mr.
      Douglas Hogg.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 32.
      Dr. Gilbert: I wish merely to draw attention to the fact that we need not have had this amendment and amendment No. 32 on Report. Even before the Bill came to this House,

      321
      Ministers' attention was drawn to the folly of requiring that one of the quorum be a Member of the House of Commons or, by implication, of the House of Lords. However, the Government took absolutely no notice. An amendment that we had prepared could have been accepted in Committee. I regret that the Government have taken so long to come to their senses.
      I felt that I must draw attention to something that is indicative of the way in which the Government have dealt with the Bill. Of course I welcome the amendments, but they should not have been necessary.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Mandelson: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 8, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 13 and insert—

      '(5) The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions and shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of subsection (6) below.

      (6) If it appears to the Committee, after consultation with the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Intelligence Service or the Director of GCHQ, as appropriate, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to national security, the Committee shall exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament but shall send a copy of the full report to the Prime Minister without any matters being excluded.

      (7) In the event of disagreement between the Committee and the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Intelligence Service or the Director of GCHQ, as appropriate, as to the matters which should be excluded for the Committee's report, that dispute shall be resolved by the Prime Minister.

      (8) Any matters not in the annual report as a result of subsection (6) above shall instead be included in a report by the Committee to the Prime Minister.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 29, in clause 3, page 13, line 17, at end insert—
      '(5) The Committee may request the assistance of staff from among such Crown servants (as defined in section 12 of the Official Secrets Act 1989) as the Secretary of State may think fit, or members of the Department of the Clerk of the House of Commons, provided that any person who assists the Committee shall be notified that he is subject to the provisions of subsection 1(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1989.'.
      No. 25, in page 13, line 36, at end insert—
      'or because the Secretary of State is satisfied that disclosure to the members of the Committee is unlikely to damage national security'.
      No. 26, in page 14, line 2, after '4.', insert '-(1)'.
      No. 27, in page 14, line 12, at end add
      '5. The Committee shall have all the powers of the House of Commons to obtain papers, information and documents and to compel the attendance of witnesses and to compel them to answer questions.'.
      No. 28, in page 14, line 12, at end add—
      '(2) No information will be regarded as sensitive—

      (a) if that information is already in the public domain or available to all those whose access to it would damage national security; or

      (b) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that disclosure to the members of the Committee is likely to damage national security.'.

      Mr. Mandelson: The amendments concern the running of the Intelligence and Security Committee which is created by the Bill.
      Amendment No. 22 concerns the method of reporting of the committee, and I wish to return to that and dwell on it at greater length. Amendment No. 29 concerns the committee's staffing, No. 25 provides a tighter definition of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might direct information to be made available to the committee,
      322
      and No. 28 clarifies and provides a greater definition of the category of sensitive information which may be supplied to the committee.
      I would not have thought that amendments Nos 25, 28 and 29 would be controversial or contentious in view of the previous commitment made by the Minister to lavish sensitive material and highly classified information on the committee. The amendments simply wish to bear out that commitment to lavishness, although they provide a slight test of whether the Minister wishes and intends to be true to his word.
      Amendment No. 20, however, involves a slightly more serious test of the Government's true attitude to the important committee which is being established by the Bill, and of the good faith with which the Government are approaching the committee's role and status—a matter to which we attach considerable importance. The effect of the amendment would be to oblige the committee to lay its annual report on the discharge of its functions before Parliament, rather than simply submitting its report directly to the Prime Minister as the Bill provides for at the moment.
      Our justification for making the change is threefold. First, we think that it is important to make clear that the authority for the committee's oversight responsibility is derived from Parliament and that that is borne out by its reporting directly back to its parent, which is Parliament. The committee is an important extension of the scrutiny role of Parliament, and not simply an instrument of the executive role of Government. It is the voice of Parliament, not an extension of the Prime Minister's office. That would be made all the clearer by making the committee submit its annual report to Parliament, rather than via the Prime Minister.
      Secondly, we think that it is important that everything possible is done to engage the sincere interest of the House of Commons in the important oversight function of the committee. It is important to gain a commitment to the work of the committee from the House of Commons, and the change that we are proposing would have some considerable symbolic value in achieving that.
      Thirdly, although we acknowledge that the committee's powers are circumscribed, it is nonetheless important for the committee to exercise some control over the timing of its report, even though the Prime Minister's veto remains in some form over the contents of the report. As presently drafted, the Intelligence and Security Committee does not have the right to publish its own report, let alone any power to determine the timing of the publication of the report. The Opposition think that that is surely wrong.
      It certainly looks absurd that a committee of parliamentarians—with all the authority and importance of the role that is being invested in that committee by the Bill —should not even have the power to publish its annual report and to determine the timing of it.
      One need only imagine the circumstances in which an annual report is made containing certain matters and references which are politically unattractive to the Prime Minister. They may be uncongenial or unpalatable at the time of elections, whether local elections, by-elections, European elections or even leadership elections.
      One can imagine all sorts of elections that the Prime Minister might face in which he did not care to have a potentially controversial report by the committee published. It would be up to him under the terms of the Bill as it is currently drafted to put off and put off the

      323
      publication of the committee's report until a time that was more acceptable and satisfactory from his point of view rather than the point of view of the committee or, indeed, the needs of Parliament. In our view, that is wrong.
      The amendment deals with an important point of principle. It is the principle of ownership of the committee, which we believe should be located, and seen to be located, clearly among Members of Parliament. The amendment has nothing to do with the separate argument about the powers and status of the committee and its access to information. All those separate matters will be covered by other amendments.
      Amendment No. 22 is important because it touches on the image of this important commttee. It touches on the committee's standing with the public. It is important that the public see the committee as capable of exercising its oversight powers independently of the Executive. For the committee to make its report to the Prime Minister rather than to Parliament involves negative connotations in the eyes of the public and denotes a lack of independence which is wrong for the presentation of the committee. Such a lack of independence affects the committee's credibility with the public and other Members of Parliament. It also affects its authority vis-a-vis the security and intelligence services.
      The committee's standing with the public, credibility with other parliamentarians and authority vis-a-vis the intelligence services are all in doubt. They have yet to be established. They remain fragile. The Minister may argue that the change proposed in the amendment is gratuitous or unnecessary, and has been tabled only to satisfy the over-zealousness or ego of parliamentarians. He would be wrong to make that judgment.
      The Minister—perhaps not the Minister personally, but Ministers as a general breed—does not realise the extent to which the jury is still out on the robustness and effectiveness of the committee and its oversight role. Many people have reserved judgment on the committee, and are waiting to see whether it will turn into a tiger or a pawn. Therefore, it is important at this stage to make some symbolic gestures that demonstrate the committee's independence and its link with the oversight and accountability functions of Parliament, rather than tie it so closely to the Prime Minister.
      The way in which the committee is perceived and judged inside and outside Parliament is important. It will be greatly affected by amendment No. 22 and other amendments that affect its running, its access to information and its independence. To modify the Bill so that the committee continues to work closely with and alongside the Prime Minister but clearly embodies the principle of answerability to the House would be a powerful symbol. It would considerably strengthen the aims and goals of the Bill to which we subscribe.
      It is important for the Joint Intelligence Committee to work closely with the Government and the Prime Minister. We understood that and accommodated it in the amendment. As we have consistently acknowledged, it is important for the operational integrity of the services to be paramount. We readily accept that no one has a greater personal duty to safeguard their operational integrity than the Prime Minister. It is therefore understandable and right
      324
      for him to be personally involved in the publication of the committee's report. He should do so in the way prescribed in our amendment, however, and not as set out in the Bill.
      The agencies should be protected from any unwitting operational disclosure in the committee's report. To that end, our amendment proposes two powerful safeguards to ensure that no unwitting disclosure takes place.
      9.15 pm
      First, we propose that the JIC should consider its draft in consultation with the agency heads before finalising the report that it makes to Parliament. The agency heads should be given that opportunity to give appropriate advice to the committee on the contents of the report so that we can ensure—certainly, to the committee's satisfaction—that nothing contained in it unwittingly discloses anything or refers to something that would endanger our national security or any operational source available to the intelligence services.
      The second safeguard, which is equally important, is that the Prime Minister should conduct any desirable or necessary arbitration between the heads of the agencies and members of the committee. The Prime Minister should resolve any disagreement—although it is unlikely—between agency heads and committee members about a matter that the committee might want to refer to in its report but the agency does not want it to include. The amendment provides for that. Any matter excluded would be reported in camera to the Prime Minister.
      When we discussed those matters in Committee, the Minister cast considerable doubt on the safeguards. While doing so, he also recognised the strength and intellectual respectability of our case and was kind enough to acknowledge that we had a powerful argument for the committee reporting directly to Parliament rather than via the Prime Minister.
      Whether for his sake, or for that of other people in the Administration—I am not sure for whom he was batting on the issue—he chose to point to some defective drafting. In my experience of the Bill in Standing Committee, and of the Minister, drafting is very much in the eye of the beholder. If one has a mind to do so, it is easy to pick holes and pull threads in almost anything, which is what the Minister did during our discussions of these matters in Committee. He alighted on the criteria that we would use for excising material and matters that it would not be right to include in the final report. The Minister drew a distinction between the drafting of the provisions currently in the Bill and the drafting of the Opposition's amendments. He pointed to what he believed was a preferable formulation and said—I will paraphrase the terms of the Bill—that matters which are prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of either of the services should be excised. The Minister thought that this was infinitely preferable to the criterion set out in the Opposition's amendment—that material which is thought to be prejudicial to national security should be excised.
      The Minister has drawn that distinction, but there is not a great deal of difference between the provisions of the Bill and the Opposition's amendment. I think that the Minister is indulging in semantics. It is pretty all-encompassing to talk of something being "prejudicial to national security". I would not have thought that anyone would have too much difficulty, after a five-minute discussion, in coming to an agreement on the basis of that broad criterion. Yet the Minister chose to describe the criterion as overly narrow.

      325
      I think that his argument was very thin. He was grasping at straws, or any pretext that he could lay his hands on, in attempting to support his argument and oppose the change that we put forward. If he is worried about the protection of intelligence sources—as he seemed to be at the time —I ask him what conceivable point there would be in the Intelligence and Security Committee identifying a source, deliberately or unwittingly.
      If it identified a source unwittingly, when it was quickly pointed out to the committee by the head of the agencies or others that there was a risk that an intelligence source might be compromised, it would be almost inconceivable for the committee, despite that advice, to persist in its pursuit of a matter which might compromise in any way either the operational integrity of the service or an important source which is available to the intelligence service.
      Dr. Gilbert: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Is it not perfectly clear that, if the committee were so obtuse or perverse as to follow the line that he puts forward as a theoretical possibility, it would very quickly find that it would receive absolutely no information, and that would be the end of the committee?
      Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. When a committee of this kind is set up, one invests heavily in the common sense, judgment and trustworthiness of the people appointed to the committee. If one cannot invest in those very important commodities, one would be very ill advised to set up the committee in the first place.
      I remind the Minister that it is the Prime Minister who is placing the trust of Parliament and the nation in the people who are selected to serve on the committee. It is the Prime Minister who determines the membership of the committee. If, at the next moment, he starts treating them as children, not only will it be insulting to the people he has appointed to the committee, but it will say a great deal about his judgment in appointing them in the first place.
      The amendment aims to strengthen the committee's parliamentary status and respectability without compromising the agencies' operational capability in any way. In doing so, it will ensure that the process of oversight commands greater public confidence. I think it is very important to us all that it be established and strengthened.
      Reporting directly to Parliament rather than via the Prime Minister may be a symbolic difference, but it is extremely important to demonstrate that we believe that strengthening ties to Parliament is more important than deepening the Intelligence and Security Committee's subservience to the Prime Minister.
      In Committee, the Minister acknowledged that the Opposition were making a respectable, intellectual argument. One senior Government source went further—I do not know whether he was speaking while he was within or outside the ring of secrecy, or whether I was inside or outside of it with him at the time, so I will not identify him. He remarked to me in Committee that this matter was not something on which the Government would go to the wall if people felt that it was important to make a symbolic but no less important gesture in establishing the committee's independence and proper functioning in relation to Parliament.
      I say to the Minister that people inside and outside the House do think that this is important. Those of us who care
      326
      about the credibility and standing of the committee therefore think that it is important. Reporting to Parliament rather than to the Prime Minister, albeit with the Prime Minister's stamp firmly on the committee's report, represents the right balance to strike. I hope that our amendment will be supported, and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I choose to speak to amendments Nos. 27 and 28 and I reject amendment No. 25 on the basis that it is craven, and because my rejection better emphasises that.
      The House will remember well that, as recently as five years ago, the idea of such an oversight committee was anathema to the Government. It was thought that the entire national security would fall apart if anyone other than the Secretary of State, or those officially within the circle of secrecy in Government, were to determine security matters. It was absolutely verboten and the very suggestion that there should be any form of committee that could remotely consider the security services was too horrendous to consider. We tried the idea of Privy Councillors being on such a committee and ran routes around the House and so on, but the suggestion was too shocking. I do not think that I am saying anything more than what was, even then, not a secret when I say that the Government were alarmed.
      In the course of those five years, the Government have travelled a long way and one should commend them for that. They have travelled that distance because we now have a more liberal Administration and because people have reflected on what they want the Intelligence and Security Committee to do. I understand why my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State does not want to address the history of the 1970s and 1980s, but that history was such that many in the House, and those who had informed discussions outside, were nervous about whether the security services were focused or under control. Concern was expressed about the policy towards the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Cathy Massiter and others and therefore the Government moved to legalise the internal security services and make them subject to a statutory authority. They had previously rejected oversight on the basis that such matters were so intimate to the very nature and survival of everything that Britain stands for that the system would fall apart if it were subject to such oversight.
      The purpose of the ISC is to attest to the general public —us, here in the Commons in one sense and the wider public outside—that the internal security services are run ethically and are not directed against honest and honourable citizens. It is designed to prove that the service is not a malign institution. It is a wholly honourable thing for the Government to want to demonstrate that in a wider focus. If they did not want to demonstrate that, why would they bother to have a committee? They could see off those of us who worry and are jittery about the integrity of such services. The majesty of Government could maintain the position that there was no need for anyone to consider the internal security services.
      We need, the public needs, a committee in which we can invest trust. We need one that can assure us about the facts that touch upon the very nature of our democracy but not, of course, by detailing and delineating the actual circumstances of cases. The Committee stage of Bills such as this used to be taken on the Floor of the House, so that

      327
      any Member who had an interest, or an interest on behalf of his constituents, could speak in more detail to amendments.
      The committee is supposed to attest to you and to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this internal security authority is working in accordance with law and appropriately. How can it do that if it is prevented from examining information that gives the entire history, tracing dead cases?
      I shall say this because I think that our obsessive secrecy undercuts the authority of Government. How can the committee, with the best will in the world, say, "We think that warrants are proportionate"? The Minister will say, "Oh, that is not the important function of the committee. That will be done by the commissioner or by others." That is not the case, because this will the only organisation for which we shall understand the character of the people appointed. After all, those people will be appointed from those who have been in our midst over the years. That is the purpose of parliamentary government, after all. We shall be able to form a judgment on the character of those individuals. That is why the parliamentary system is often advanced as a good one. We know the weight and the worthiness of the individuals that are there, so that we can trust them when they attest to us, "I cannot tell you the details, but I assure you that that is proper and ethical."
      9.30 pm
      That is what the Government want and what the House
      wants and I suspect that it is what the generality of the public want. Therefore, if one is investing in people whom one knows—the appointment is in the gift of the Prime Minister in the end—one must allow them to consider all that one would expect them to be able to consider, such as papers, information and documents, and to compel the attendance of witnesses if necessary. That would be a much more consensual thing, but the statute should set out firmly, "This committee is entitled to look at everything." That will give us the necessary confidence in it.
      The purpose of our security service arrangements—the Bill, in a sense—is to give us all an opportunity to reinforce the most important concept that we slip away from in the House, ministerial accountability. Ministers come from among us. They come from the general election among us. They are meant to be our friends, our instrument by which we govern our society. Of course that is wildly fanciful, but I subscribe to the bonny traditions of our House and it was the old tradition and view. I am a Jeffersonian democrat in those terms. I do not believe in prerogatives and I am glad that the Government have put that on a statutory basis. It was inappropriate before.
      The purpose of our system, with the checks and balances and so on, is to reinforce the doctrine. I cannot trace, and I do not think that anyone has ever been able to trace in any of the debates that we have had, where authority lies. Where are the checks and balances? Who is responsible for monitoring, overseeing and attesting that all is well ethically, is properly run and is run in accordance with the law? Where is the officer who carries out the oversight function?
      The Foreign Secretary is now engaged almost permanently in a dialogue about Europe, plus the security dimension. He is the Secretary of State, in theory, issuing those warrants, no less, keeping an eye on what those people are doing. He has the commissioner to do it, but his
      328
      greatest allies are his colleagues from the Parliament of the United Kingdom, who are also considering those matters. I think that it will be a heavy job.
      I honour those who will take on the responsibility of being members of that oversight committee because, if they take their tasks seriously, if they are to give authority to that committee, they will have to be individuals whom we trust, whose character we know and can weigh. We must not have old toadies of Government or former Ministers who have been through the routine and have become so grand, vaunted up with privy councillorships on their way to the House of Lords, and who are good and noble bodies who have inflicted much damage on our national life during the ordinary course of their business as ordinary Ministers. No; we want people of spirit. That must be right. This is a land of spirit.
      First, that will reinforce accountability. It will help the Minister to do his duty to the House. Secondly, it will give the confidence that was lacking in parts of the 1980s. We have said it before and I think that everyone agrees here. Those are essentially honourable, not covert, services. Those are not shabby little individuals who run around trying to undermine the integrity and authority of our institution. They are honourable public servants who are trying to do, as we try to do, their best for our society.
      In the muddle of the Bill, I think that it is a worthy amendment—I take amendment 27 at random. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is generous in such matters, so perhaps he could assure an even better interpretation of the Bill, ready for the House of Lords, so that it can come back here and we can give it a cheer.
      Mr. Winnick: I must tell the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that, although it is quite likely that he does not wish to serve on the committee, his chances of doing so if he did so wish are probably very remote. If I may hazard a guess, I think that —unfortunately—those nominated from among the Tories will be those whom the Government consider safest, and least likely to cause any trouble.
      The amendments deal with the crux of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) rightly said that, to a large extent, the credibility of the committee is at stake. Those of us who have campaigned for genuine parliamentary scrutiny over the years have always taken the view that at some stage we will succeed: in 1986, I said in a speech that the time would come when the Government of the day accepted the necessity for some scrutiny of the intelligence services. So far, the Government's response has always been that such scrutiny is unnecessary. When the issue has been raised in Adjournment debates and on other occasions, Ministers have always told me that, because of ministerial control, there is no need for concern or for the establishment of any such committee.
      I do not think that the Bill gives the impression that there will be genuine parliamentary scrutiny. The committee will report to the Prime Minister; I assume that it will be serviced by the Cabinet Office. The Parliamentary Secretary nods. Such a committee would appear to be virtually a sub-committee of the Cabinet Office, although it would include parliamentarians. That may not be the Government's wish, and it may not happen in practice. However, it would be important because it would not only give the impression of genuine parliamentary scrutiny but to ensure that it takes place.

      329
      That is why I think that a Select Committee should be set up, although.I accept that the Government are not going to establish one at this stage.
      Why not accept the amendments? Why should not the committee report to Parliament rather than to the Prime Minister? It should be the servant of Parliament: is it going to be the servant of the Prime Minister? That is the real issue. What sort of committee are we discussing—a committee that is answerable only to the Prime Minister, as the Bill suggests, or a committee that is answerable to the House of Commons?
      As I have said before, if other western democracies are willing to provide for genuine parliamentary scrutiny, why is not the British Parliament—the oldest in the world—prepared to do the same? Why should it be thought that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted? Why should it be felt that we are not in a position to decide on such sensitive matters—which, indeed, has always been the argument against establishing a committee in the first place?
      Amendment No. 27 states:
      'The Committee shall have … powers … to obtain papers, information and documents".
      That, too, is an important amendment. Will the committee have the authority to obtain those papers, information and documents, so that it can carry out the job for which I hope it is being set up? If the Government continue to take the view that the committee should be denied such powers —I fear that they will—it will inevitably be felt that it is not a genuine committee.
      I am not in a position to know the views of those who are directly involved in the security services. They may have no particular view one way or the other, or they may agree with the broad aspects of the Bill. However, there is at least a possibility that some, at any rate, believe that if there is to be parliamentary scrutiny it should go the whole hog—that is not a deliberate pun on the Minister's name!—or, certainly, much of the way. They may believe that a genuine committee should be established, if not a Select Committee. A committee with the powers suggested in the amendments may inspire more confidence in those involved in the security services.
      For those reasons, I believe that the Government should be far more flexible and far more willing to accept that Members of Parliament appointed to the committee can do the job. They should not adopt an attitude that suggests —as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool rightly said—that they are dealing with children. For so many years, the Government refused to accept any form of parliamentary scrutiny, but why stop here? Why not go a little further and establish a committee in which the House can have confidence and whose members realise that they are servants of the House and are not accountable only to the Prime Minister?
      Mr. Allason: Amendment No. 27 deals with the committee's right to obtain information and documents and would grant the committee the power to call individual officers to give evidence before it. I have some reservations about the latter provision, but it is immensely important that the committee has the right to call for information and documents. I draw the House's attention to amendment No. 1 which deals with what should happen to any such documents.
      A public declassification procedure is long overdue in this country, and I see no reason why we should not have
      330
      one, especially in view of the American experience, which has been entirely successful. For example, earlier this year, the CIA issued a publication on the Cuban missile crisis. Members of the oversight committee should be allowed to call for documents, even those of an historic nature, to enable them to get the complete background to particular events.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) explained, the British have a curious attitude towards secrecy, which can be encapsulated in the difference between the British and American approaches. The American approach is that, if any document has been generated with taxpayers' money, the taxpayer is entitled to see that document at some stage. If the Government object on grounds of national security, there is a straightforward procedure to follow—an independent judge can be persuaded of the case and he can prevent declassification—but, under any other circumstances, the citizen has the right to see documents after a given period.
      It is curious that GCHQ, MI5 and the SIS are exempt from the Public Records Act 1958. None of their documents go to the Public Record Office; that organisational designation alone on the documents' circulation list will be enough to prevent them from going there. The American approach is that the citizen has a right to see documents. It is a tremendous discipline for public servants because they know that there will be disclosure at some stage and that their advice will be revealed. The British approach is that Ministers must be allowed to receive completely independent advice from their civil servants and that the civil servants should never be held to account at the bar of public opinion. I know which of the two options I believe is healthier for democracy, for the public and for confidence in those agencies. There is a dramatic difference between the two.
      Amendment No.1 would allow all documents—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Amendment No. 1 is not included in this group. Indeed, it was not selected at all.
      Mr. Allason: I am grateful for it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am speaking to amendment No. 27, which would allow members of the committee to call for documents. If it were accepted, they would be empowered to call for documents of the type that I have described which, under my amendment, would have gone to the PRO. It would have got the Government off a hook on which they have recently impaled themselves. Fifty years ago, in the run-up to D-day, it would have been possible to release all the relevant documents. They would have shown that, while there is a proper place for commemoration, there is also a great deal to celebrate in the remarkable military achievement of 6 June 1944. I accordingly urge the House to accept amendment No. 27.
      Dr. Gilbert: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on his extremely eloquent remarks on this group of amendments. I subscribe to everything that he said, especially about the need for the committee's reports to be published properly after they have been scrutinised and accepted by the Prime Minister. I realise that there is nothing in the group of amendments that specifically relates to that idea, but I hope that I shall not stretch your tolerance too far, Dame Janet, if I invite the Minister, when he replies, at least to acknowledge that in

      331
      the normal course of events the country and the House could expect the reports to be published within, say, two months of being submitted to the Prime Minister. I realise that there could be abnormal circumstances—a general election could intervene, for example—but it would be helpful to everybody if the Minister gave an assurance about what would happen in the normal course of events.
      9.45 pm
      I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said about amendment No.27—about the powers of the oversight committee. We discussed those at some length in Committee, but it is as well to give the whole House the chance to hear the arguments. My recollection is that when we diwpssed those matters in Committee the only defence that th6 Minister of State gave for his resistance to the Opposition amendments was that the powers were not needed, because virtually everybody would be awfully happy and would want to come along and give evidence to the committee anyway. If I do the Minister an injustice or traduce him, it is open to him to tell the House now that he has other arguments, but that is the only argument that I can remember him having offered in Committee.
      Earlier today the Minister gave us a list of all the areas into which the committee might find itself being drawn: drug smuggling, child pornography, violence and serious crime are apparently all to come within its purview. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really intend to stand up at the Dispatch Box and say again that he expects everyone whom the committee will want to have as a witness to come willingly? I cannot believe that he will try to advance such a preposterous argument to the House. It is clearly necessary for the committee to have some powers.
      It is bad enough that the committee will not have the power to put witnesses on oath and that, unlike witnesses before Select Committees, its witnesses will not be at risk of being in contempt of the House. But witnesses will not even have to come at all. If they feel like it, they will be able to laugh at any invitation from the committee. I cannot see how it can be in the Government's interests to produce a committee with no powers of that sort, so that thoroughly unscrupulous people will be able to mock an invitation to appear before it.
      Presumably the Government and the Prime Minister want the committee to be treated seriously, as a body of some status and dignity, but unless it is given some powers I am afraid that not only will the Government's assurances ring hollow but the whole business will not do the Prime Minister's reputation any good.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The debate has focused mainly on amendments Nos. 22 and 27, dealing with the report to Parliament and the powers of the committee, so I shall speak to those two amendments.
      The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) made a powerful case for reporting to Parliament. I understand it, and it is a perfectly respectable case. The question is where the balance of advantage lies. I seek to persuade the House that it lies with the formulation set out in the Bill as drafted at present.
      Essentially, I shall make three points. First, the amendments do not achieve any substantial or substantive
      332
      beneficial effect. Secondly, they are incompatible with the nature of the committee as contemplated within the Bill. Thirdly—these are drafting points, but of some substance —the amendments have within them some undesirable elements.
      Do the amendments achieve anything of real substance? Under the Bill, Parliament will receive a full report through the Prime Minister, who will have the power to make excisions—but Parliament will receive a full report. That is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. We are debating a difference in the modalities, not in the end result. I understand the argument about enhancing the status of the committee but do not agree with it. The end result—the presentation to Parliament of a report—would happen either way.
      Mr. Mandelson: The Minister misses the point. If Parliament receives a report from an independent committee drawn from its own Members, who have exercised a full oversight function, Parliament will attach considerable weight to its contents. If Parliament receives a report from the Prime Minister, that imprimatur will give the report its character and status—which will consequently be lower in the eyes of Parliament and the public.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman reinforces my view that we are discussing modalities rather than strategic objectives. We have the same objective—that Parliament should receive a comprehensive report. We are arguing between ourselves as to whether or not that report goes via the Prime Minister. I do not think that that matter is of enormous principle.
      Is it logical to adopt the approach taken in the Bill or that proposed in the amendment? The plain truth is that the committee is sui generis. Its members are appointed by the Prime Minister—it is not a Select Committee—who is responsible to the House for intelligence and security. It is logical that the committee should report to him, for he appointed it and is accountable for the policies in respect of which it exercises oversight for the House. It is more logical to follow our route than that of the hon. Member for Hartlepool.
      I want to make a number of drafting points. I do not pretend that they are all overwhelming but their cumulative effect is considerable. The amendment makes no provision for ad hoc reports, and I am sure that we all agree that they are desirable. Also, the amendment provides—at least in the first instance—for the decision as to what should be or can be excised to be discussed between the committee and the agencies. I find it odd that the agencies should have a role in determining what should be excised, bearing in mind the fact that they are overseen by the committee. I am uncomfortable about that mismatch.
      The hon. Member for Hartlepool is wrong to reject the Bill's provision for excisions when the material is prejudicial to the workings of the agencies—or words to that effect. The hon. Gentleman wants a test of national security. That is interesting, when one considers the remarks of the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert). It would be difficult to say that the disclosure, for example, of the identity of a source would automatically be prejudicial to national security, whereas it almost always would be to the functioning of the agencies. The hon. Member for Hartlepool could have put that right in his amendment but chose not to do so, so he must be judged on his own drafting.
      Mr. Mandelson: Surely the Minister accepts that such information would be prejudicial both to national security and to the exercise of the agencies' functions? In that case, it is never likely to come within a mile of appearing in anything so much as an early draft of a report, let alone in the final version.
      Mr. Hogg: I do not agree. It might be, but it would not necessarily be so. Take the example of a source that relates to drug trafficking abroad. I do not believe that identifying such a source would, in the generality of cases, be prejudicial to national security but it would almost always be prejudicial to the proper working of the agencies, because they would not obtain any information in future. That distinction is another argument against the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
      Mr. Mandelson: Given the terms of the amendment, does the Minister accept that that is precisely the sort of advice that could and would be offered to the committee by the heads of the agencies concerned? They would say, "By including a certain matter in the draft report the committee unwittingly risks revealing the identity of an important source. Could you not do this?" The committee would immediately accept that. That is why the first safeguard appears in the amendment.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The criterion for excising material in the amendment is that matters are prejudicial to national security. That test cannot be satisfied in the example that I have given, and that is why I gave it.
      The right hon. Member for Dudley, East asked about time. I cannot confirm that the period would be two months but I can certainly say that it is something that needs to be done quickly and within a reasonable time. In any event, the committee will be able to embarrass the Prime Minister of the day by stating that it has laid its report before him and is looking forward with anticipation to its presentation to Parliament. I cannot give a guarantee on two months, and I shall not do so.
      Dr. Gilbert: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made an extremely helpful point. Are we to take it that it will not be treated as a breach of confidence if the committee discloses the date on which it submitted a report to the Prime Minister?
      Mr. Hogg: I cannot think that that difficulty will arise.
      I move on to persons and papers. There is a case to be made but in the end there is a difference between our concepts and those of Opposition Members. In effect, Opposition Members are trying to create a Select Committee. We are against that. They are seeking to cloak the committee that we are establishing with all the powers of a Select Committee. I am against that. I believe that the committee that we have created has been given adequate powers to perform its oversight functions. Opposition Members want to give it an unfettered right to call for persons and papers. In Committee, I described the obligations of the heads of agencies and, for that matter, the officers of the services. We need not go over that ground again. In the generality of cases, the information or the personnel will come before the committee subject to the authority of the head of the agency and the terms of schedule 3.
      Mr. Mandelson: I wish to clarify what the Minister has just said. He said that the right to call people to the
      334
      committee will extend to the heads of the agencies and to personnel working within the agencies. Will it extend also to personnel and officials working elsewhere in the Government machine?
      Mr. Hogg: I can conceive of many or some circumstances in which the committee would wish to see persons working within Government Departments outside the agencies. There are restrictions that will necessarily apply. The consent of the Secretary of State will be necessary. The Secretary of State, or perhaps the permanent secretary in each Department, would have to give consent. That is inevitable. Indeed, that applies to Select Committees. There are also the restrictions that are set out in schedule 3 concerning sensitive information and the like. I would expect those criteria also to be respected.
      Mr. Mandelson: Answer the question.
      Mr. Hogg: I am trying to do so.
      Subject to the consent of the Minister, who would have to justify his refusal to the House, and subject to a proper respecting of the protections provided in schedule 3, there may be circumstances—I admit that I am using weasel words but I am trying to be careful—in which officials from other Departments would come before the committee. In other words, it could happen but it will not always happen.
      Mr. Rogers: Is the Minister saying that the Government or a Government will allow information to come forward if something is potentially embarrassing to them politically but does not impinge upon national security? History proves that, if information is likely to prove embarrassing for a Government, they will not allow it to come through.
      Mr. Hogg: I think that I have answered the question fully. If there is a request by the committee to see officials and that request is declined, Ministers may have to explain why they have declined the request. The House of Commons is increasingly intrusive in those matters—and a jolly good thing too.
      One should remember that the Bill and other legislation provides for restrictions on the information that can be made available to the committee. It is foolish to pretend otherwise. The problem with the persons and papers powers in the amendments—particularly amendment No. 22—is that they do not respect those restrictions or other statutory restrictions.
      Mr. Winnick: If the committee decides, as it may do in certain circumstances, that it wants a particular witness to come before it, who could be from outside the Government service and that that witness is essential—
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Intelligence Services Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
      Question agreed to.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Winnick: If a witness refuses to accept a summons to appear before a Select Committee, it can come to the House for authority to summon him. Will the Minister give

      335
      a pledge that the proposed committee will be able to ask for such authority and that the Government will give that support?
      Mr. Hogg: No, I cannot give that pledge and the issue does not arise. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the power of a Select Committee conferred on it by the authority of the House. The Standing Orders of the House contain no provision to give such a power to the proposed committee, which is not a Select Committee, and there is no such provision in the Bill.
      I suspect that, in most cases, people who are outside the Government machine and who have information will wish to give that information and will, therefore, come before the committee. In reply to thuestion whether the committee has the power to that, the answer is no.
      Dr. Gilbert: Nothing in the Bill says that the committee may not make the request. The committee may not get very far, so the Minister cannot rely on that. I should be interested to hear his answer to this point. He said that the power is not contained in the Bill. That is what is wrong with the Bill and that is what we are complaining about. We are still waiting to hear the reason. My hon. Friends and I would be amenable to hearing any reason from him other than that most people will come anyway. Why does he think that Select Committees need the power, whereas this committee does not?
      Mr. Hogg: I have given the reason why I do not think that the committee requires the power, although the right hon. Gentleman may not agree with it. It is not a Select Committee of the House. We need to be chary about the powers that the House gives to committees that are not Select Committees. The Bill provides—and I think that the House accepts this—that there need to be restrictions on the classes of information that the committee is entitled to require to be delivered to it. That goes for information and for papers. A range of statutes, including the Official Secrets Act 1911, bite on people's ability to give evidence or provide information. The amendment's provisions on persons and papers, and the concept behind it, take no account of restrictions in the Bill and no account of the Official Secrets Act. It is objectionable for that reason.
      Mr. Rogers: The answer that the Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) is not good enough. As my right hon. Friend said, the Minister has not given a substantial reason for refusing the amendment. For that reason, we shall press it to a vote.
      Dr. Gilbert: Is it not perfectly clear that the Minister has told the House that the committee is not going to be a Select Committee? We all know that, and we do not need him to tell us it again. He has also said that the House should be chary of giving such powers to an outside committee, which I accept.
      Will my hon. Friend try to extract from the Minister his view of the difference between the functions of this committee and the functions of a Select Committee? It seems to me that the committee will perform virtually all the functions of a Select Committee—except that it will not have the same powers. It will certainly do Select Committee work.
      Mr. Rogers: As my right hon. Friend knows, during the Committee stage of the Bill it was impossible, I am afraid, to extract any reasonable answers from the Minister. I do not suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is about to reform this evening. I am quite prepared to allow him to intervene if he wants to volunteer, but I doubt whether he will. Meanwhile we shall press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 267.

      Division No. 224]

      [10.05 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Lewis, Terry

      Barnes, Harry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Blunkett, David

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Boyes, Roland

      Macdonald, Calum

      Burden, Richard

      McFall, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Caborn, Richard

      McWilliam, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Madden, Max

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Mahon, Alice

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Maxton, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Michael, Alun

      Cohen, Harry

      Milburn, Alan

      Connarty, Michael

      Miller, Andrew

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Mullin, Chris

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Cousins, Jim

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Cox, Tom

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Randall, Stuart

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

      Raynsford, Nick

      Dixon, Don

      Redmond, Martin

      Dowd, Jim

      Reid, Dr John

      Eastham, Ken

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Etherington, Bill

      Rogers, Allan

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Rowlands, Ted

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Short, Clare

      Fyfe, Maria

      Simpson, Alan

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Graham, Thomas

      Spearing, Nigel

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Gunnell, John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Hanson, David

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Harvey, Nick

      Winnick, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Wise, Audrey

      Home Robertson, John

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Mr. Eric Illsley and

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Mr. Gordon McMaster.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Alexander, Richard

      Beggs, Roy

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Amess, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Arbuthnot, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Booth, Hartley

      Ashby, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Atkins, Robert

      Bowden, Andrew

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Bowis, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Brazier, Julian

      Baldry, Tony

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      337

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hendry, Charles

      Burns, Simon

      Hicks, Robert

      Burt, Alistair

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Butcher, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Butler, Peter

      Horam, John

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Cash, William

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Churchill, Mr

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jack, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Jessel, Toby

      Coe, Sebastian

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Congdon, David

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Conway, Derek

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knapman, Roger

      Cormack, Patrick

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Couchman, James

      Knox, Sir David

      Cran, James

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Legg, Barry

      Day, Stephen

      Leigh, Edward

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Devlin, Tim

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lidington, David

      Dover, Den

      Lightbown, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lord, Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Elletson, Harold

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Maclean, David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Madel, Sir David

      Faber, David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fabricant, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Mandelson, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Marland, Paul

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Marlow, Tony

      Forman, Nigel

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Forth, Eric

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Mates, Michael

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      French, Douglas

      Merchant, Piers

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Mills, Iain

      Gallie, Phil

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Garnier, Edward

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gill, Christopher

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Nelson, Anthony

      Gorst, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Norris, Steve

      Hague, William

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Page, Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hannam, Sir John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Pawsey, James

      Harris, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hawkins, Nick

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      338

      Rathbone, Tim

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Thomason, Roy

      Richards, Rod

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Thurnham, Peter

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Tracey, Richard

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Trend, Michael

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Sackville, Tom

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Walden, George

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Waller, Gary

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shersby, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sims, Roger

      Watts, John

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Whittingdale, John

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Spring, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Willetts, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Steen, Anthony

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stephen, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Stern, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Streeter, Gary

      Sweeney, Walter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sykes, John

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 1

      INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Rogers: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 10, line 20, after 'State', insert—
      '7A. The Tribunal shall submit details of every determination made by it, its reasons for the determination and the relevant background papers to the Intelligence and Security Committee.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—
      '. Where it is possible for the Tribunal to give reasons for its determination to the complainant without damaging national security it shall do so.'.
      Mr. Rogers: The amendments relate to the tribunal and the oversight committee. [Interruption.] It is very difficult to hear oneself speak because of all of the noise from the Government Front Bench and the racket from the Back Benches.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the conversation is confined to the Front Benches. The hon. Gentleman's point is well taken.
      Mr. Rogers: I am glad that some Government Members have been able to have an enjoyable evening; they look all the better for it.
      The reason for the amendments is to enable the Committee, as we have described in the last group of amendments in relation to clause 10, to consider the

      339
      workings of the two services. For it to do so, it must know what complaints have been made and how they have been dealt with by the tribunal.
      The vast majority of complaints to the current security service tribunal appear to be unjustified. Indeed, since the commission was set up and the tribunals have been in operation, the number of complaints is in the low 40s. None of those has been accepted by the commissioner, even for investigation, without being related to the tribunal in any way.
      Therefore, it is important that the tribunal reports to the oversight committee to see whether any complaints are justified. Of course, that information will be helpful for the committee to carry out its work, and the committee would also need the power to call for information from the tribunal. During the debate on the previous group of amendments, we talked about the power of the committee to compel witnesses to appear before it and order people to provide information for it. The Government would not accept that. Within the closed circle of secrecy that the Government are creating, surely there is no harm or difficulty in the tribunal reporting to the scrutiny committee. It is within the circle of secrecy that the Minister is so anxious to maintain and would not affect national security in any way.
      Amendment No. 24 is extremely important. It deals with whether the tribunal should give reasons for its determination to complainants so long as national security is not involved. The amendment seeks to give the complainant greater rights to natural justice. The tribunal would have to give some details to the complainant.
      The procedure envisaged in the Bill is completely secretive. Everything is done by post. There is no hearing. Once complainants have made a complaint, they receive a letter saying that the case is being investigated. A few months later they receive another letter saying that no determination has been made in their favour. That is the pattern that has prevailed under the Security Service Act 1989. No information is given about what has happened in the intervening period, who has been investigated and who has been interviewed. The complainant has no access to any information, even if the disclosure of the information would not affect national security.
      Without access to any of the results of the tribunal's investigation, the complainant is in an impossible position and cannot argue his or her case properly. Therefore, the so-called remedy is of little value. In some cases, it will not be possible to reveal any information, but in many cases it will be possible. As we have said, we support most of the provisions of the Bill because we believe that we have to have a secret intelligence service and it has to be allowed to carry out its job properly. However, the procedures laid down in the Bill do not comply with safeguards contained in article 6 of the European convention on human rights.
      In addition to the failure to provide any information on the allegations that may have justified surveillance, as we have seen the tribunal can determine only whether the service had reasonable grounds for its actions. It cannot consider the correctness of the service's decision that any particular action or surveillance was justified.
      Since the 1989 Act set up the tribunal for the security service, no complaint has ever been upheld by the tribunal. That shows that the model for what is envisaged in the Bill
      340
      not only has an imperfect record but does little to further the interests of natural justice. We believe that the amendments are extremely important in the general structure of the Bill. Therefore, we shall press them to a vote.
      Mr. David Davis: May I begin by correcting something that I am sure the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) did not intend to put on the record. He said that of the 40 complaints none was investigated. I think that he meant that there were no determinations in favour of the complainants. All the complaints were investigated. As I said in Committee, although the commissioner has the right not to investigate if he judges a complaint to be vexatious, he has investigated every complaint put to him.
      I cannot commend the amendments to the House. Both have been discussed previously in another place and in Committee. As I explained in Committee, amendment No. 23 would increase the access of the oversight committee to information and by so doing would risk confusing and overlapping its functions with those of the tribunal.
      The legislation is framed in a way which ensures that there is a proper, independent and effective form of redress for complainants. That is what is important and what the tribunal is for. The oversight committee's remit is to examine the administration, policy and expenditure of the agencies. The Bill provides that they shall have access to the information that they require to fulfil that remit, subject to the provisions of schedule 3. The committee has no role in investigating complaints, nor is it its role to oversee the work of the tribunal.
      The investigation of complaints naturally involves detailed consideration of precise operational information. That may include information listed in paragraph 4 of schedule 3 which is defined as sensitive. For that reason, we are not prepared to accept that the tribunal should automatically give details of all its cases to the oversight committee.
      At first sight, amendment No. 24 attracts some sympathy. It requires the tribunal to give reasons to a complainant for its determination, if it can do so without endangering national security. The amendment has an attraction, since I appreciate that complainants may feel aggrieved when they receive no explanation for the tribunal's decision on their case, whether their complaint is upheld or not.
      Before I explain why we have a problem with the amendment, the House should remember that many organisations throughout the world—and closer to home—are keen to learn about security and intelligence apparatus and techniques in this country. That is self-evident. Many of those organisations are extremely sophisticated and have considerable resources. They are capable of monitoring all sorts of information and much can be inferred from what is not, as well as what is, made public when collating intelligence information.
      As the Government have often said, they remain absolutely committed to ensuring the continued security of the agencies' operations. Without that security the work of the agencies would be ineffective. For that reason, it is vital that information about the operations and procedures of the agencies is not inadvertently divulged in any circumstances.
      Security would obviously be jeopardised if complainants who were properly the subject of investigation were made aware of that fact. If, on the other hand, the

      341
      practice of informing only those complainants against whom no action had been taken were introduced, it could clearly be inferred that complainants who were not so informed had been the subject of action by an agency. Security would therefore be jeopardised.
      Accordingly, in the Government's view, almost any practice of disclosure to a complainant would in the long term damage national security. That would make the amendment ineffective, if not arguably dangerous, and for that reason I cannot commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 258.

      Division No. 225]

      [10.30 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Lewis, Terry

      Barnes, Harry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Blunkett, David

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Boyes, Roland

      Macdonald, Calum

      Bradley, Keith

      McFall, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Caborn, Richard

      McWilliam, John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Mahon, Alice

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Maxton, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Michael, Alun

      Cohen, Harry

      Milburn, Alan

      Connarty, Michael

      Miller, Andrew

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Mullin, Chris

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Cousins, Jim

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Cox, Tom

      Pike, Peter L.

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

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

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Dixon, Don

      Randall, Stuart

      Dowd, Jim

      Raynsford, Nick

      Eastham, Ken

      Redmond, Martin

      Etherington, Bill

      Reid, Dr John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Rogers, Allan

      Fyfe, Maria

      Sheerman, Barry

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Short, Clare

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Simpson, Alan

      Graham, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Gunnell, John

      Winnick, David

      Hanson, David

      Wise, Audrey

      Hinchliffe, David

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Home Robertson, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Mr. Eric Illsley and

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Mr. Gordon McMaster.

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Baldry, Tony

      Alexander, Richard

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Beggs, Roy

      Amess, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Arbuthnot, James

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Ashby, David

      Booth, Hartley

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Bowis, John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      342

      Brazier, Julian

      Hawksley, Warren

      Bright, Graham

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hendry, Charles

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Horam, John

      Burns, Simon

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Butler, Peter

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cash, William

      Jack, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Churchill, Mr

      Jessel, Toby

      Clappison, James

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Coe, Sebastian

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Congdon, David

      Knapman, Roger

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Knox, Sir David

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Couchman, James

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Cran, James

      Legg, Barry

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Leigh, Edward

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Day, Stephen

      Lidington, David

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Lightbown, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lord, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Luff, Peter

      Duncan, Alan

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Maclean, David

      Eggar, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Elletson, Harold

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Madel, Sir David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Malone, Gerald

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Mans, Keith

      Faber, David

      Marlow, Tony

      Fabricant, Michael

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Mates, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      Merchant, Piers

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Mills, Iain

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Moate, Sir Roger

      French, Douglas

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gallie, Phil

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Nelson, Anthony

      Garnier, Edward

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gorst, John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Norris, Steve

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Page, Richard

      Hague, William

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Pawsey, James

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Rathbone, Tim

      Harris, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      343

      Richards, Rod

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Thomason, Roy

      Robathan, Andrew

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Thomton, Sir Malcolm

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Sackville, Tom

      Tracey, Richard

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Trend, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Viggers, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Shersby, Michael

      Walden, George

      Sims, Roger

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Waller, Gary

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Watts, John

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wells, Bowen

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Whitney, Ray

      Spring, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wilkinson, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Willetts, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Stern, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Streeter, Gary

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sweeney, Walter

      Yeo, Tim

      Sykes, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Mr. Timothy Wood and

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Mr. Derek Conway.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 3

      THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE
      Amendment made: No. 32, in page 13, line 15, leave out from 'three' to end of line 17.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      10.38 pm
      Mr. Winnick: I wish that I could be more enthusiastic about the Bill, especially in view of the long campaign to ensure that the security services are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
      I wish that I were in a position tonight in which I could say that the campaign had succeeded, and that the oversight that is necessary to ensure that the security services act in the way in which they should act had been accomplished, but I am afraid that I am not in that position. Therefore, like my hon. Friends, I am somewhat critical of the measure. I am not enthusiastic.
      It is regrettable that the Government, having gone down the road of parliamentary scrutiny of a type, have stopped far short of what they should be doing. I should like to be able to say that the long campaign had come to a victorious conclusion. I should like to be able to say that the House could now be satisfied that it was establishing genuine parliamentary scrutiny along the lines of other western democracies. Unfortunately, I am not in that position.
      I say this to the Minister. This would have been the opportunity to end the controversy. This would have been the opportunity to say that the battle had been won. The
      344
      parties should agree to an oversight committee and there is no reason why it should continue to be the subject of controversy.
      I do not believe that we do the services—the intelligence services, MI5, MI6 and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham—any favours by creating a situation in which the controversy will continue. I agree that the controversy will continue in a more limited form, but it will continue. It will continue because we have not ensured the necessary type of parliamentary scrutiny.
      It is unfortunate that the proposed oversight committee will report not directly to the House but to the Prime Minister and hence there will be a feeling that the committee is more similar to a Cabinet subcommittee than it should be. I regret even more deeply the fact that the proposed committee will not have powers and papers which it should have.
      I challenged the Minister earlier about what would happen if a witness who had been summoned to the committee decided that he or she did not want to appear. I asked whether, in those circumstances, the Government would be in favour of ensuring that the person concerned was forced to go to the committee as to a Select Committee. The Minister of State at the Foreign Office said that the Government would be willing to do nothing of the kind.
      It is unfortunate indeed that the oversight committee does not yet have the powers and authority that the House
      should give such a committee. I do not know who will
      serve on the committee, but I hope that, in spite of the limitations that I have outlined and in spite of the criticisms that were made by the Labour party in Committee and on the Floor of the House, the committee, once it is set up, will regard its job as that of a genuine oversight committee.
      One of the reasons that I, and I am sure most of my hon. Friends, will not vote against the Third Reading is that we believe that the measure goes at least some of the way towards what we want to do. If we were of the view that it was entirely a mockery, for such a committee would serve no purpose, obviously we would vote against Third Reading, as we would have done against Second Reading, but that is not our view. I accept, as I said a few moments ago, that it goes down the type of road that we want to travel, but how much better it would have been if it had gone down the road of other western democracies.
      How much better it would be if we could say, apart from anything else tonight, that the campaign has now ended. It will not end. From time to time, hon. Members such as I will no doubt make the arguments that we have made before.
      Nevertheless, I wish the proposed committee every success. I hope that it will carry out the type of functions that it should carry out. I have never disputed that we need the security and intelligence services, and would need them even if we were not confronted by the curse of continuing terrorism. I know of no country—no democracy—that does not have some type of intelligence and security services and I cannot anticipate any circumstances in the future in which the facilities of such a service will not be necessary. A democracy has a right to defend itself.
      My criticism of the security services has been largely connected with the scandals and abuses that have occurred. I have never questioned the need for such services, and, as I have said, I see no reason for us to work on the assumption that such assistance to the democracy in which

      345
      we live will not continue. Nevertheless, the intelligence and security services should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as other arms and agencies of Government. The need for such scrutiny explains why parliamentary control was introduced, why Select Committees were set up in 1979 and why some other Committees existed before then.
      If we could assume that the committee would do the job that I consider necessary, we should be far happier tonight. Notwithstanding all those criticisms, I believe that we should give the committee an opportunity to work, and to see how far it goes in its work; but I am certain that the matter will return to the House at some future date. I am convinced, as I was before, not only that there should be parliamentary oversight but that a Select Committee should be established—and one of these days such a committee will come into being, along the lines that we advocate.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Allason: The Bill puts on a statutory footing an agency that has existed since 1909, and establishes a commissioner and a tribunal to hear complaints from the public. It is not a consequence of an investigation conducted by Otis Pike or Frank Church—the kind of investigation that was undertaken in the United States; there has never been any sabotage of a Greenpeace vessel like Rainbow Warrior. The only scandals to have preoccupied the SIS, MI5 and GCHQ in recent years have been the unauthorised disclosures made by retired security and intelligence personnel. More than £1 million of taxpayers' money was wasted in the fruitless, counterproductive pursuit of Peter Wright, thereby-ensuring that "Spycatcher" became an international best-seller.
      Wright was resident abroad, and had acquired Australian citizenship. Accordingly, the public watched the unedifying spectacle of an Australian judge, in an Australian court, with an Australian defendant, deciding what was or was not in the British national interest. GCHQ avoided a similar fiasco by taking out an injunction against a former radio officer, Jock Kane; as a retiree—a pensioner now working as a milkman in Hampshire—he has been unable to produce his memoirs, but no doubt he will be one of the complainants before the tribunal and the commissioner.
      As for the SIS, it is in a curious position following the enactment of the Official Secrets Act in 1989. Two books have driven a coach and horses through the Act. Desmond Bristow was engaged in an acrimonious correspondence with the Treasury solicitor; he is resident in Spain and his publishers are American, so he held a strong hand when he ignored the threats and released "A Game of Moles" last year. Similarly, Brian Crozier received a series of threats from the Cabinet Secretary regarding his book "Free Agent".
      The bottom line is that both books, written by retired SIS officers, were perceived by their former employers to be prejudicial to national security: that is quite clear from the exchanges between the various parties. However, absolutely no action of any kind has been taken against them—or, indeed, against the late Nicholas Elliott, who told me shortly before his tragic death some 10 days ago that he he had applied for and received permission to publish a third volume of his memoirs. The first did not mention his lengthy career in the SIS; the second was a
      346
      delightful account of his clandestine life. Alas, the third will never be published; but it is certain that other such books will follow. With compulsory redundancies being imposed on the SIS for the first time in the 85 years of its history, perhaps we should anticipate that disenchanted early retirees will capitalise on their experiences.
      The current arrangement for dealing with the authorisation of the memoirs of security and intelligence personnel is manifestly unsatisfactory. It is conducted on the basis of nods, winks and threats that amount to impotent bluff. If there is a single issue that affects the operational capacity of all three agencies covered by the Bill, it is disclosure of the kind that I have described.
      Although I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his handling of the Bill, I hope that the commission and the tribunal will be allowed to interpret their briefs sufficiently widely to avoid more lapses of the type that brought the security services so unfairly and unnecessarily into disrepute.
      10.50 pm
      Mr. Mullin: The security services have been brought into disrepute over the years because of their own actions, which they no doubt thought would never see the light of day. However, many of those actions did see the light of day, partly due to the disclosures to which the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has referred.
      My problem with what has happened in the past—I do not suggest that it is still happening, although I suppose that we shall have to wait a few years to find out—is more fundamental than that expressed by the hon. Member for Torbay. It is a matter of record that, in the past, the security services have to a great extent been targeted against the party which, for 17 of the past 45 years, has formed the Government and that they have on occasion been used to subvert the elected Government.
      I do not know whether it is still the case but, at least until fairly recently, the security services were permanently under the control of the friends of one political party. That was certainly the experience of previous Labour Governments. In another place, Lord Jenkins referred to the "in-growing monoculture" of the security services which he found when he was, nominally at least, in charge of them. Unhappily, it has also been the case that the security services have been targeted by their political masters against people involved in legitimate activities—that was the reason why Cathy Massiter resigned.
      I suppose that it could be said that the services have for many years been out of everyone's control, and certainly out of Parliament's control. Indeed, until the Bill came before the House, no one had ever suggested that Parliament should have any say in the matter. I believe that they have been out of the control of all Secretaries of State and most Prime Ministers of either party.
      There is a wider problem. It is also a matter of record that the security services have been paralysed by internal feuding. People who care about national security—many, especially Conservative Members, say that they do—should at least be concerned about the extent to which the operational capability of the security services has been entirely diverted by such feuding. Many Conservatives also claim to be concerned about getting value for money, so they should be concerned about the fact that millions of

      347
      pounds have been wasted by being invested in enterprises that were not effective even within the terms of reference that the security services set themselves.
      A further problem was outlined by Robin Robison, a chap who worked in the Cabinet Office until a couple years of ago. He said that domestic telephone tapping had increased massively in recent years. I have no way of confirming his suggestion, although the issue was raised in Committee, that, although GCHQ was supposed to target foreign communications, its vast facilities have been used for domestic tapping. He worked in the Cabinet Office and says that he saw the product of some of those taps.
      The litmus test of the new committee to be established by the Bill will be the extent to which it is able to oblige the security services to put a stop to the nonsense that has occurred in the past. The problem will not arise immediately because it is in the nature of things that, whichever Government happen to be in office, the security services tend to be under the control of the friends of one political party—the party which is presently in government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The test would come after the next election, were there to be a change of Government. Would a Labour Government be able to receive the same loyal service from the security services as the present Government believe that they receive? I do not think so. The record suggests that that would not happen. At that point, we would find out whether the committee established by the Bill makes any difference.
      I shall cite an example from the 1970s. If forged documents about Swiss bank accounts in the name of, say, the deputy leader of the Labour party suddenly-appeared on the market, as happened in the 1970s, would the committee be able to pursue an inquiry and follow the trail wherever it led? I do not know, but it should be able to do so.
      How easily could the committee be nobbled? Others have commented on that problem, so I shall do so only in passing, but that will be easy. As others have remarked, the Bill gives the security services carte blanche. There is no definition of the national interest, of serious crime or of economic well-being; there is no definition that limits their activities in any way. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, there is no definition of what constitutes legitimate dissent.
      The second problem with the committee is that, as others have also said, it is a creature not of Parliament but of the Government. It will be appointed by the Prime Minister and will report to the Prime Minister, and it will be the Prime Minister who decides what it sees.
      Thirdly, the committee has no powers to compel persons and papers to come before it. In Committee we moved amendments to introduce such powers, and they were rejected. There is no power comparable with Select Committees' reserve powers to require witnesses to give evidence on oath. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) rightly made much of that issue in Committee, but when the idea was put to the Government they rejected it.
      The committee will be staffed not by servants of the House but by civil servants, probably supplied by the Cabinet Office. To a great extent it will be in the hands of people who are servants not of Parliament but of the Government. Furthermore, it appears to be committed to the obsessive secrecy that has surrounded the activities of
      348
      the security services for so long. The committee has no power that I can detect to hold any public sessions. I do not see why it should not hold some. As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I was one of the people invited to lunch with the director of MI5, Mrs. Rimington. Nothing took place at that lunch that could not easily have been said in public.
      I do not see why, now or at some time in the future, the committee should not have the power to interview those in charge of the security services, at least about the general principles of their work. I do not see why it should not be able to do what is done in other mature democracies, and interview candidates for the top jobs in those services. Why should they not be interviewed, so that their commitment to parliamentary democracy can be tested in public?
      For example, if Mr. Spedding, who has just been appointed as head of MI6, were to come before the committee, one would want to know what he was doing in Chile in 1973. That was a time when the democratically elected Government of that country were overthrown, with much violence. It would be a test of Mr. Spedding's commitment to parliamentary democracy if we asked whether he, representing the security services there, played any part in that process.
      If Mrs. Rimington were up for the job of head of MI5, as she was a few years ago, and we had the power to conduct such interviews, one would want to talk to her in general terms about her commitment to parliamentary democracy, especially in relation to some of the activities in which F branch of MI5 engaged during the early 1980s—the activities that caused Cathy Massiter to resign.
      The only concession that we succeeded in extracting from the Government in Committee was an increase in the size of the oversight committee. Although we are grateful for that, it is not adequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made the point that it is much in the interests of the security services that the exercise is credible. I am sure that there are genuine democrats in the security services and that many of them—perhaps the majority—want the services to be properly accountable. In the last few years, there has been a large clear-out of what one former Home Secretary described to me as dead wood, and it is at least arguable that the majority of those in the services are firmly committed to parliamentary democracy and proper accountability, and the Bill does not provide that.
      The Bill is the first step on a long road—which is why, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, I shall not vote against its Third Reading. I am glad that the committee is being established, and were a future Government so minded, there would be nothing to prevent them from making amendments to rectify some of the problems that I and others outlined.
      There has been much speculation about likely candidates for membership of the oversight committee. Some of them were depressingly predictable, and I hope that the committee will include one or two inquiring minds. As the committee is presently empowered, it will not be good enough merely to have inquiring minds. It must have the power to do the job properly—on behalf of Parliament, not the Executive.
      11.1 pm
      Dr. Gilbert: I do not usually detain the House at this time of night, and I rise to speak only because I am filled with a great sense of disappointment over missed possibilities. Right hon. and hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee ought to know that we were faced by a Minister who was not only extraordinarily unbriefed but extraordinarily obdurate.
      Normally, it would not matter if a Minister were unbriefed, provided that he had some experience of committee matters. Apart from the GCHQ debate, not one of the amendments with which the two Ministers had to contend had any partisan flavour, yet the Minister of State did not know the powers of Select Committees. He had to go away and be instructed that they have powers to swear witnesses. He did not know the powers in his own Bill with respect to the committee that he was establishing. He had to take advice as to whether it would be able to swear witnesses.
      We even had the spectacle of a Queen's counsel, a man of considerable intelligence—to which I pay tribute—and a man who, given the disarray of the Government's Law Officers, has a distinct future as a Law Officer, although that is no great compliment to him, choosing to say that, for all practical purposes, the country no longer needs a law of perjury. It defeats me why the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the law of the land should be as it is in that respect.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman kept telling us that the oversight committee was not a Select Committee, which we all knew, but he never said why. Amendment No. 37, which was understandably not selected, and my hon. Friends pointed out that it is really a prime ministerial committee. In addition, the Minister is totally lacking in ability to master simple arithmetic up to a sum of five. He finds it necessary for the oversight committee's chairman to have two votes—one to create a tie and one to break a tie. That is not the case in a Select Committee, but as the committee is not a Select Committee it shall be different. If we have a five to three to one committee—we must assume that the Minister sensibly relies on there being partisan votes—that is virtually a five to four committee and the chairman will not need two votes because he will have a vote to break a tie. If there is a defection from the Government ranks, it becomes not a five to three to one or a five to four committee but a four to five committee. In that event, the chairman's second vote is of no use to him because he will not be able to use it.
      The Minister may have mastered the law but it is clear that he has not mastered the most simple addition tables. He had not appreciated before the Bill came before the House that it was nonsensical to require that one member of the quorum be a Member of the House of Lords, even though the practical absurdities of that requirement were pointed out to him personally before the Bill reached the Floor of the House. We had to wait until today before he conceded that point.
      Why should such an intelligent Minister behave in such a way? The word is being put about that it is nothing to do with his Department and nothing to do with the Foreign Office, which was prepared to be reasonable. It is said that the Home Office created the difficulties. If that should be the case, my only hope is that some Home Office officials come before a Select Committee before too long.
      350
      The Bill is the product of Ministers who individually have no Committee experience to speak of. The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science was kind enough to admit that. Equally, his ministerial colleague has no Committee experience. The Bill is the product of a Government who are terrified of facing a Select Committee.
      For all these reasons a great opportunity has been missed. That is a sad thing to have to say. It could all have been so much easier. We could have completed today's proceedings in a fraction of the time that it has taken to reach this stage. However, I welcome the Bill, despite my reservations—[Interruption.] There is not the slightest inconsistency. I welcome the Bill because it sets a precedent.
      Mr. Allason: Give him a job.
      Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman would be surprised by what happened if the Government did that.
      As I have said, the Bill sets a precedent for some parliamentary scrutiny of these operations. I hope that the committee will have success. I hope also that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who will respond on behalf of the Opposition, will assure us that one of the first tasks of a Labour Administration will be to ensure that the committee is converted into a full-blown Select Committee.
      11.7 pm
      Mr. Rogers: Our consideration of the Bill in Committee was extremely interesting. For many of us—those not obsessed with the secret and security services—it was quite a learning experience. I thank all my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and Conservative Members for the positive way in which they approached our debates.
      I do not know whether I agree with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) about the Minister of State. On occasions, I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was too well briefed. I wish that he had been a little briefer in expounding some of his briefs. It was an experience, however, for many of us to learn about some fundamental matters that are extremely important to society.
      We are talking about the security of the nation, the balance of security in the process of law, the balance of security and the rights of individuals, the assertion of parliamentary democracy and accountability and control over the state and the Government. On many occasions it was right to pay tribute to members of the security services for the dedicated work that they have undertaken over many years. It was right also to say on other occasions that there were members of the security services who had let down their comrades as well as letting down the nation by defecting and acting to the detriment of society.
      The Opposition recognise that the effectiveness of the country's security and intelligence services depends on a degree of secrecy that would be unacceptable in other institutions. However, that latitude puts the services in a unique position. That is why we tabled amendments to clause 1 and clause 10 in particular so as to focus on the rights and privileges of the security services and on the accountability of those services to Parliament and to democracy.

      351
      Our main concern has always been the control aspect—the process of accountability that is enshrined within the Bill. We regret the Government's minimalist approach. It does not fulfil the Bill's original intention, which was to create a more open society and more open government. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East that the Government have missed an opportunity to bring about an openness in an aspect of society that has been secret for too long. We are probably the most secretive society of all the western democracies.
      Unfortunately, clause 10, which sets up the Intelligence and Security Committee, does not also set up a process of accountability. There is no breaking of the ring of secrecy. There is no way of operating outside the ring of the Secretary of State and the Joint Intelligence Committee tasking the security services, of the Secretary of State issuing a warrant so that they can operate outside the law where they feel that that is necessary, of the services reporting back to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State filtering information before it comes to the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Prime Minister and the head of the agencies using their right to sideline information. The circle is too tight and too complete.
      The committee will be a charade, a pretence at accountability. The Minister responsible for open government may shake his head, but the proof is in the pudding. I hope that the committee has a better record than the tribunal that was set up under the Security Service Act 1989. That tribunal has been what I feel this committee will be—a pretence at accountability.
      We will not force a Division because the Opposition accept that we need secret services, and that they need to be secret. We commend the Government for going as far as they have, but we wish that they had taken this opportunity to go a little bit further, accepted many of our constructive amendments and ended up with a better Act.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 10.

      Division No.226]

      [11.13

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Alexander, Richard

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Amess, David

      Burns, Simon

      Arbuthnot, James

      Burt, Alistair

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Butler, Peter

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Ashby, David

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Cash, William

      Baldry, Tony

      Clappison, James

      Beggs, Roy

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Coe, Sebastian

      Booth, Hartley

      Congdon, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Bowis, John

      Cran, James

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

      Brazier, Julian

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bright, Graham

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Day, Stephen

      352

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Marlow, Tony

      Devlin, Tim

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mates, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Duncan, Alan

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Merchant, Piers

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Mills, Iain

      Elletson, Harold

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Faber, David

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Forman, Nigel

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Norris, Steve

      Forth, Eric

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Page, Richard

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Paice, James

      French, Douglas

      Patnick, Irvine

      Gallie, Phil

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Gill, Christopher

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Rathbone, Tim

      Gorst, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Richards, Rod

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hague, William

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Harris, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hendry, Charles

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hicks, Robert

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Horam, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Spring, Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Sproat, Iain

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Jack, Michael

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Stephen, Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Stern, Michael

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Streeter, Gary

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Sykes, John

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Knapman, Roger

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Thomason, Roy

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Thurnham, Peter

      Legg, Barry

      Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

      Leigh, Edward

      Tracey, Richard

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Tredinnick, David

      Lidington, David

      Trend, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Viggers, Peter

      Lord, Michael

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Luff, Peter

      Walden, George

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Waller, Gary

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Maclean, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Watts, John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Wells, Bowen

      Madel, Sir David

      Whitney, Ray

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Whittingdale, John

      Malone, Gerald

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mans, Keith

      Wilkinson, John

      353

      Willetts, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Wood, Timothy

      Mr. Derek Conway.

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Loyden, Eddie

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Mahon, Alice

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Wray, Jimmy

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lewis, Terry

      Mr. Dennis Skinner and

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Mr. Alan Simpson.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Baby Milk (EC Directive)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
11.25 pm
Mr. David Faber: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise concerns about the Government's draft regulations implementing the EC directive on infant formula and follow-on formula—commonly known to most of us as baby milk. I hope that, in doing so, hon. Members will forgive me for not giving way, but I have some ground to cover in the time available.
I would particularly like to acknowledge my constituent, Cow and Gate Nutricia of Trowbridge—one of Europe's leading companies in infant feeding products and clinical nutrition, and a household name to millions of mothers over many years—for bringing the matter to my attention.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Hear, hear.
Mr. Faber: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that. I have no doubt that, while we may have differing physiques, he—like me—was a Cow and Gate baby at one stage.
The EC directive on infant formula and follow-on formula contains much that should be welcomed by mothers and by the baby milk industry alike. The majority of the rules on marketing contained within it are already enshrined in a voluntary UK code of practice, which was agreed as long ago as 1983 between the Government, the industry and health care professionals.
That voluntary code of practice and the entire debate surrounding the advertising and marketing of baby milk starts with one basic presumption—that breast is best. Mothers should be, and are, encouraged to breast-feed babies so long as it is physically and practically possible for them to do so.
However, in the real world, we all know that that is not always the case. For that reason, I believe that the draft UK regulations enforcing the EC directive go much too far. The code of practice was introduced with Government backing in 1983, since when it has been supported by a code monitoring committee of which the majority of members are completely independent of infant formula companies. The code bans advertising to the general public, except under the control of the health care system, and controls advertising to health professionals themselves.
The committee considers complaints against the code, which are rarely numerous and are often from pressure groups. Few of the complaints are upheld. Since the adoption of the code, baby milk manufacturers themselves have taken further steps to control their marketing by banning the free supply of infant formula and subsidised supplies to the health service from 1989 onwards. Much of what is contained in the EC directive merely goes to formalise what has been to date an informal voluntary code of practice.
It is particularly sad, therefore, that the draft UK regulations to implement this directive which come into force in June go beyond what is either necessary or desirable, and my concern is shared almost across the

355
board by the baby milk industry, health care professionals and, most importantly, by the consumers—that is to say, the mothers themselves.
In seeking to ban advertising both to mothers themselves in health journals and to the wholesale and retail trade, the draft regulations are an affront to free trade, anti-competitive and, above all, a denial of a mother's right to free choice and free information. The bottom line is that mothers need information to allow them to make informed choices about how to feed their infants.
Within the current UK code of practice, it is possible for manufacturers to advertise their formula brands to mothers, provided that such advertisements appear in specialist maternity and mothercraft publications which are already distributed within the health care system. Parents can obtain information about infant feeding from a number of different sources—health professionals, the Government, specialist organisations and, of course, the manufacturers of baby milk themselves.
All those sources of information have an important role to play in providing suitable information to ensure an informed choice. Since the voluntary code was introduced in 1983, the Government have spent roughly £26,500 a year to promote breast-feeding through the national breast-feeding initiative. That total sum translates into a yearly figure of 33p per baby.
In contrast, baby milk manufacturers currently provide a service to health professionals and mothers by providing information about infant feeding, including both breast and bottle-feeding. They do so through leaflets, sponsorship, the training of health professionals, advertising, videos and customer health lines. It is said that the majority of the services they offer are currently offered under the control of the health care system. In all, it is estimated that the industry hands some 5 million educational leaflets a year to roughly 800,000 mothers.
The proposed legislation limits the provision of educational information material to parents and health professionals. Manufacturers will often find that they are no longer able to provide the variety and depth of information and material that can currently be found. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me what plans the Government have, given the mass exodus from the information and educational market that will probably take place if the regulations are enforced, to provide the additional information that will be necessary for mothers and health professionals in order to fulfil the obligations contained in the EC directive to
"provide objective and consistent information"
about infant feeding.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Faber: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will keep going.
Mr. Morley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I regret making a point of order, but I understand that it is a convention in the House that Members who have an interest declare that interest when they speak on a matter which relates directly to it. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not heard him declare his interest in Sterling Marketing, of which I understand that he is a director, and which is involved in advertising and
356
marketing. The debate has some relevance to advertising and marketing. I wonder whether you could give us some guidance on that point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The rules of the House are clear: any hon. Member who has an interest in a debate should declare it.
Mr. Faber: I am happy to put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. Sterling Marketing is not involved in advertising in any way. It produces mail order brochures and has absolutely nothing to do with either the infant formula market or the marketing of any good, let alone advertising. It produces mail order brochures for retail products. I have no connection with Sterling Marketing since I left it, except that I remain a shareholder.
What are the key factors that affect a mother's choice whether to breast-feed? They are rooted in deep-seated personal preferences and advice from family, friends and health professionals, and social factors. Since 1983, when marketing controls were introduced, the proportion of mothers who breast-feed to mothers who bottle-feed has barely altered.
In 1980, before the introduction of the 1983 voluntary code of practice, the breast-feeding rate among the population was 65 per cent. According to a written reply by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 3 February, the figure was again 65 per cent. in 1985. After the 1988 voluntary ban on free samples, the latest Government-reported breast-feeding rate in 1990 was 64 per cent.—a drop of just 1 per cent.
In a complex psychological process, in which rationality often conflicts with emotion, up to a third of mothers choose to bottle-feed from the outset, while many more make a token gesture to breast-feed before giving up. More than half of all mothers feel comfortable and confident about bottle-feeding their baby, but the irrefutable fact remains that breast-feeding is the best option to adopt.
The Government's report "Infant feeding 1990" gave the top seven reasons that mothers gave for bottle-feeding. They were: so that other people could feed the baby, the mother's previous experience, that the mother disliked the idea of breast-feeding, embarrassment, to see how much milk the infant had drunk, medical reasons and an expectation of a quick return to work. Advertising of infant formula was not given as a reason why mothers chose to bottle-feed rather than to breast-feed.
I am happy to say that fathers, too, are responsible for influencing the feeding method. In 1992, independent research showed that fathers were found to have a high level of interest and involvement in the feeding process. Their attitude was likely to be a major influence on the woman's choice of feeding method, second only to her personal inclinations and way above the role of advertising.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Faber: I am a little pushed for time.
What is the role of advertising within the infant formula industry? Infant formula advertising in this country does not promote bottle-feeding over breast-feeding. It provides information to allow mothers to make an informed choice

357
about what to feed their infant should they choose to bottle-feed. In all current advertising, manufacturers already stress the superiority of breast over bottle-feeding. That will be further strengthened by the requirements of the European Community directive.
It is clear that the key reasons why infant formula manufacturers advertise—operating under the code of practice—are to provide information and to compete against other brands of infant formula, but not to promote bottle-feeding over breast-feeding.
A survey undertaken by the independent research company Market Trends earlier this year showed that all groups of health professionals vigorously oppose the Government's proposed ban on consumer advertising—64 per cent. of health visitors, 68 per cent. of midwives, 61 per cent. of general practitioners and 60 per cent. of directors of midwifery all disagreed with an advertising ban.
The same research overwhelmingly showed that parents want infant formula advertising, and most certainly do not want a ban on consumer advertising—88 per cent. of all mothers said that they did not want a ban, 74 per cent. of mothers who breast-feed only do not want a ban, and an astonishing 90 per cent. of mothers who both breast and bottle-feed did not support the proposed ban.
As well as depriving mothers of freedom of choice and free access to information, the draft regulations represent overpowering restrictions on free competition, and will discriminate against United Kingdom consumers and manufacturers by inhibiting free competition between companies and countries.
A ban on advertising will effectively freeze the present market situation in the UK, and manufacturers are likely to be faced with a static market, with roughly the proportions of market share that they currently hold.
Research and development in the field of infant nutrition is expensive and time-consuming, but leads to real and significant improvements in baby milk products, bringing them ever closer to breast milk. Unless manufacturers are able to make consumers aware of the differences and advantages of choosing one infant formula over another, there is little incentive for them to innovate and produce new products.
A ban on consumer advertising and the proposed restrictions on labelling information may mean that the rate of research and development slows down dramatically as manufacturers are simply unable to obtain any further benefits from it.
The proposed ban within the draft regulations on advertising to the grocery and drugstore trade will deny industry an important communication channel with its distributors. Trade advertising does not promote infant formula to consumers, but it serves to make retail outlets more aware of infant formula products that they may wish to stock. About 39 per cent. of all infant formula is sold through grocery outlets, and if a significant number of retailers are not permitted to have information about infant formula products, there is likely to be a reduction in the number of outlets that stock that formula.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me of one other legal product that is freely and openly sold where such a ban on advertising is in effect? At a time when the Government, whether rightly or wrongly, refuse to ban the advertising to consumers of tobacco products, does he not think it ironic that we should be discussing a much more restrictive type of ban on, of all things, baby milk?
At a time when we are increasingly aware of the
358
so-called level playing field in Europe and progressive deregulation here at home, why do the Government seek once again to go beyond what is proposed by Brussels? In January this year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a consultation document on the deregulation of the food industry, outlined the criteria for introducing new legislation. Does the proposed legislation go further than is necessary? What is likely to be its impact on business, has industry been adequately consulted, and what does it think?
The legislation goes further than is necessary and will not achieve its stated aim of promoting and protecting breast-feeding. The regulations attempt to introduce extra rules and regulations that go way beyond the EC directive and will be of benefit to no one, least of all the mothers.
I think that I can anticipate one aspect of my hon. Friend's reply—that these are draft regulations and we are still in a period of consultation. I can only say that I hope that he will take this as one further submission, as part of that process, in addition to the many submissions opposing the regulations that he has already received. Perhaps my hon. Friend would also like to consider the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on "BBC News" on 3 December in Brussels, when he said:
"National Governments don't always translate Community Directives into plain rules that everyone can understand. We sometimes add extra rules simply because they seem a good idea to Departments, to advisers, or to pressure groups."
Mothers want information to help them make an informed choice about what to feed their babies should they choose to bottle feed. They should not be made to feel that they are in some way doing something wrong or nasty if they are unable or unwilling to breast feed. I believe that it is right to leave the last word to a mother who wrote to the Daily Mail just last month:
"When I became pregnant with my little boy … I intended from the start to breastfeed him. But when Jordan was born, much to my dismay I found it extremely difficult—and for him the whole experience was very distressing. After four days of unsuccessful attempts, I reluctantly agreed to put Jordan on bottled milk and the result was fantastic: a much happier baby and a more relaxed mum … but at the time I felt extremely guilty and a complete and utter failure as a mother.
Hundreds of women are faced with a similar problem. Like me, they start out with good intentions, but after the birth of their child they find breastfeeding impossible. They are getting very negative messages from the Government about their ability as mothers."
I very much hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity tonight to send out a more positive message to all of those mothers.
11.40 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member fo Westbury (Mr. Faber) for raising this subject. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend that he should be surrounded this evening by his supporters and friends who have come to hear him debate the matter in such a formidably well-informed manner. I congratulate him on the clear, sensible and entirely reasonable way in which he put forward his case. This matter raises the most extraordinary heat on both sides of the argument and I know that there is currently a great deal of interest in it.
We issued proposals for United Kingdom regulations implementing the directive in December 1993. Since then, I have received a large number of letters from hon. Members about our proposals. We have had a good

359
response to our consultation exercise and, far from being cynical, my hon. Friend was perfectly right when he said that we are still in a period of consultation. He may rest assured that what he has said tonight will be a very important part of that consultation, and we will certainly treat his speech as a submission.
I do not want to jump too far ahead, so I will return to consultation later. Before I deal with the points that my hon. Friend has raised, I am sure that it will be helpful to set out for the House the background to this issue.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the World Health Assembly has adopted an international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes drawn up by the World Health Organisation. The aim of this code is to contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants by the protection and promotion of breast feeding and by ensuring the proper use of breast milk substitutes.
The Government are fully committed to action to improve breast feeding rates; it is one of our undertakings in relation to the "Health of the Nation" initiative. Individual countries were left to decide how best to implement the World Health Organisation's recommendations in their own territories. The United Kingdom Government decided that it could best be done through industry self-regulation and, following consultation with interested parties, a voluntary code of practice came into being in 1983 to give effect to the aim and principles of the World Health Organisation code.
To complement this, the health departments in the United Kingdom provide guidance to health authorities and health professionals which draws attention to the aims and principles of the WHO code, the voluntary industry code of practice, the establishment of a code monitoring committee, and the responsibilities of health care professionals. That is the system that has operated in the United Kingdom for the past 10 years.
In the mid to late 1980s, the European Community started to interfere, frankly, and to consider the introduction of European Union legislation. In 1991, it adopted directives on the composition, marketing and export of infant formulae and follow-on formulae.
I want to stress two points to my hon. Friend. First, although the EC directives are intended to implement the aims and the principles of the WHO code, they do not adopt its provisions in every detail. As with all EC measures, a consensus had to be reached to reflect the vastly differing views and practices of the various member states.
The second and more important point is that the United Kingdom is required to implement the terms of the EC directive, not the WHO recommendations. In the usual way, therefore, the Government have considered the terms of the EC directives and have drafted regulations to give them effect in the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, those draft regulations were sent out to interested parties early in December 1993, and comments were invited on the proposals.
I should like to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that there has been overwhelming support for the majority of the provisions proposed in the draft regulations. There has been a unanimous welcome for compositional requirements—infant formula is the sole
360
source of nutrition for babies who are not breast-fed—and for labelling provisions that embody in statute that breast milk is without equal for infants in the first months of life.
Advertising is the one area on which opinion has been polarised. My hon. Friend has rightly identified that issue, and spoke about it sensibly. The manufacturers have complained that what the United Kingdom has proposed goes beyond the minimum requirements of the directive, is unnecessarily restrictive and does not conform with the Government's deregulation initiative.
I listened with great care to what my hon. Friend said about deregulation, the assurances given by the Prime Minister, and the entire thrust of my Ministry's legislative programme—to introduce regulation as a last resort. I must acknowledge that the latter point has struck a number of the hon. Members who have written to me, as it has struck me most formidably. I want to assure my hon. Friend that the decision will eventually be taken against that background as well as on all the other arguments.
I must also inform the House, however, that a large number of those who responded to the invitation to comment on the regulations were not only in support of the proposed advertising restrictions, but in some extraordinary way wanted them to be even more restrictive. They even went so far as requesting a total ban on advertising. They also want the advertising restriction to apply not only to infant formulae but to follow-on formulae. It is true to say that many of those letters were co-ordinated in a write-in.
It is right to consider what we are required to implement in the United Kingdom. Article 8 of the EC directive says:
"Advertising of infant formulae shall be restricted to publications specialising in baby care and scientific publications. Member states may further restrict or prohibit such advertising."
The directive also adds:
"Such advertising shall contain only information of a scientific and factual nature."
Regulation 17 of the draft United Kingdom regulations says:
" No person shall publish or display any advertisement for an infant formula except in a publication specialising in baby care or in a scientific publication of which, in either case, the intended readership is one of independent persons qualified in medicine, nutrition or pharmacy or having a professional qualification in maternal or child care."
As my hon. Friend has speculated, the wording of the United Kingdom regulations goes further than the minimum restriction in the directive, in that it restricts baby care publications to those with an intended readership of independent health care professionals. As I pointed out earlier, however, the directive allows member states to introduce further restrictions of their own.
Unequivocal medical advice has consistently supported breast feeding as the best way of feeding a baby. Restrictions on the advertising of infant formula have been developed to encourage mothers to give their children the best possible nutritional start in life. Given the health arguments in favour of breast feeding, we thought it right to explore the possibility of going further than the minimum required by the directive.
Other factors have to be taken into account when considering that possibility. Under the terms of the industry's voluntary code of practice, advertising in general baby care magazines read mainly by mothers and pregnant women is not permitted, although advertising is permitted if the magazines are distributed within the health care system. If we adopt the minimum laid down in the directive, it would appear to allow advertisements to be

361
placed in generally available baby care magazines. Should the UK regulations be less restrictive on advertising than those restrictions voluntarily adopted by the industry?
I am aware of the survey carried out by Bounty earlier this year on the proposed advertising restrictions. It has been suggested that the United Kingdom is the only country which is being more restrictive than the directive requires. We have made inquiries about other member states' intentions, and we await replies from some of them. However, from the information that we have received, it would appear that some countries—Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and France—intend to use the option in the directive to introduce restrictions beyond the minimum laid down in the directive.
Mr. David Lidington: So what?
Mr. Soames: So what nothing. I am merely telling my hon. Friend what the point of the argument is, and how the situation lies. That is what so what.
That is obviously something which the Government would wish to consider extremely carefully when finalising the regulations.
My hon. Friend said, and it is correct to assume, that, were an advertising ban to go through, we would, in my view, be in the not entirely satisfactory position of needing to make available the information that mothers need, solely through the voluntary sector. That is not necessarily a position in which we would wish to find ourselves.
My hon. Friend made another argument in relation to the advertising restrictions. The restrictions currently adopted voluntarily by the industry apply only to advertising aimed at the purchasers of the products. That is mainly mothers and pregnant women. The restrictions do not apply to the manufacturers' advertising to wholesalers and retailers.
However, the industry believes, and I have to say that it is correct, that the draft regulations would prohibit manufacturers from advertising to the trade, and that the ban would include leaflets and circulars, conference displays and other forms of communication. I am well
362
aware of the strength of feeling about that point by people in the industry, and at this stage, as my hon. Friend correctly speculated, I have to say that I and my ministerial colleagues will consider carefully all those details before deciding the final form of the regulations.
It has been suggested—my hon. Friend mentioned it—that it is inconsistent to consider legislating against the advertising of infant formula while refusing to take similar action in the case of tobacco. The fundamental issues involved are not the same. Cigarette smoking is a matter of personal and adult choice, and the Government believe that voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry provide the best way of controlling its advertising.
It does not follow that the same solution is appropriate for infant formula advertising, where we are seeking to protect the best interests of people who are unable to exercise their own personal choice—the new-born. It is necessary to consider each case on its merits, and to explore all the options before reaching a decision. Consultation, as my hon. Friend is aware, is a fundamental part of that process.
I am aware that the European Community directive requires member states to implement its provisions by 1 June 1994. It is quite possible that our regulations will not be finalised, and made and laid before Parliament, by then. That will obviously have consequences for the coming into force date that the Government will need to consider.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the arguments that he raised in the debate. I can assure him that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will bear all his arguments in mind when we consider the way in which the draft UK regulations should best be finalised, which we hope to do soon. I will ensure that my hon. Friend is informed when that occurs. I once again congratulate him on an extremely well-informed and interesting speech.
The motion having been made 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 five minutes to Twelve midnight.

TREASURY

  Inland Revenue Unit Costs
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his best estimate of the Inland Revenue's main unit costs for dealing with the tax affairs of(a) employees on PAYE liable at the basic rate and the higher rate, (b) the self-employed and (c) occupational pensioners.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information in the precise form requested is not available. The Inland Revenue's management plan, which will be published shortly, will give the unit costs for all schedule E taxpayer records, including PAYE taxpayer and occupational pensioners; all schedule D records, including the self-employed.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he expects that the Inland Revenue will have issued tax codes incorporating the new company car benefit charges for 1994–95 to the majority of company car users;

  (2) what proportion of tax codings issued to taxpayers by the Inland Revenue for the tax year 1994–95 have included the benefit charge for use of a company car in 1994–95 as announced in the Budget in November 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  By now, all employees and employers should have received 1994–95 PAYE codes based on the most up to date information about car benefits and other matters held by the Revenue.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give(a) the number of cases and (b) the average amount of tax involved where capital gains tax was remitted because the taxpayer had left the country for each year since 1984.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of cases and the average amount of tax involved where capital gains tax was remitted because the taxpayer has left the country for each year since 1984 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  Average amount in £

  1984

  207

  8,662

  1985

  194

  7,431

  1986

  177

  27,381

  1987

  177

  15,506

  1988

  238

  8,737

  1989

  204

  10,048

  1990

  218

  8,444

  1991

  345

  13,401

  1992

  448

  14,932

  162
  Figures for 1993 are not sufficiently complete to allow the necessary comparison to be made and consequently the information is not available in the form requested.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the cost of tax relief on income and capital gains from shareholdings held in PEPs for the year 1996–97, assuming that the uptake of PEPs continues at its present rate and that there is no change in income or capital gains tax legislation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This would depend on rates of return from PEP investments in 1996–97.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional proposals he has to reduce tax avoidance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The 1994 Finance Bill contains a number of important new anti-avoidance measures which are expected to yield almost £2 billion over the next three years. The Government will be considering whether further measures will be announced in the next Budget.

  Payment of Accounts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends taking action to make it a criminal offence for companies deliberately to delay payment of accounts.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government's consultation exercise on late payment ended on 31 March 1994. We are currently considering the responses and the Government will announce their decision in due course.

  VAT
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the contribution to the change in level of imports from Europe in the first half of 1993 of evasion of value added tax following the abolition of the request for imports declared at customs.

  Sir John Cope
  This change provided no new opportunities for VAT evasion, so the question of assessing the amount does not arise.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of VAT repayment cheques stolen in each of the last five years.

  Sir John Cope
  The value of VAT payable orders which have been fraudulently encashed in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  25,052

  1990–91

  161,235

  1991–92

  85,246

  1992–93

  11,194,650

  1993–94

  20,327

  1Includes a payable order for £1,156,806 stolen en route to Haringey borough council.

  Excluding the Haringey case, £230,956 of the total of
  £329,704 misappropriated has been recovered.
  163
  The sums still outstanding continue to be subject to any further recovery action that is practically possible.

  Import Duties
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much duty was collected on imports of(a) alcoholic beverages and (b) tobacco in the first half of 1993 and the first half of 1992; and what is his estimate of the revenue lost from the new system of recording the trade figures.

  Sir John Cope
  Estimates for the amount of duty paid on imported products are calculated only on an annual basis. The figures for 1992 are £1,620 million for alcoholic beverages and £620 million for tobacco. A breakdown between imports and domestic sales is not yet available for 1993. The new system of recording the trade figures has no effect on the amount of duty collected.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what negotiations have been taking place between the International Monetary Fund over Mozambique.

  Sir John Cope
  The Mozambican authorities have recently completed discussions with IMF staff on an extension of the three-year enhanced structural adjustment fund programme which ended in 1993. They have also been negotiating an economic recovery package with the World bank. The Mozambican authorities, the fund, and the bank will now collaborate to produce a policy framework paper which will identify Mozambique's macroeconomic and structural policy objectives, Mozambique's strategy to achieve them, and the associated financing requirements, during the fourth year of its ESAF programme. The details of discussions between fund and bank staff of a member's policies are confidential to them.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all categories of public service employees who will receive pay rises above 1.5 per cent. in the current year; and what are the percentage rises in each case.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government expect pay in the public sector in 1994–95 to be considered in accordance with the approach which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in his statement of 14 September 1993 and which he confirmed in the Budget. I expect that public sector groups will be subject to a variety of pay settlements.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the regulatory bodies set up since 1979 to regulate industries or public services which have been privatised since that date; and if he will set out in each case how much it costs to run and how many people it employs.

  Mr. Portillo
  The relevant bodies and their planned cost and staff numbers for 1994–95 are as follows:
  164

  Organisation

  Cost (£ million)

  Staff numbers

  Office of Telecommunications (OFTEL)

  8·6

  171

  Office of Gas Supply (OFGAS)

  4·4

  63

  Office of Electricity Regulation (OFFER)

  10·9

  234

  Office of Electricity Regulation (Northern Ireland)

  0·9

  16

  Office of Water Services (OFWAT)

  9·5

  150

  Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR)

  6·5

  90

  D-day Commemoration
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the involvement of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the appointment of Lowe Bell Communications as consultants for the D-day commemoration.

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Retail Prices Index
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the individual components of the retail prices index; what are the prices for each item in the latest monthly survey; and what were the corresponding figures(a) 12 months and (b) 24 months earlier.

  Sir John Cope
  A list of the price indicators used for the retail prices index was published in the April 1993 Retail Prices Index Business Monitor MM23. A new list will be published shortly.

  The purpose of the RPI is to measure price change rather than price levels. For many of the items, which are heterogeneous, the data are not suitable for the calculation of average prices.

  Those average prices that can be calculated are published in the RPI Business Monitor MM23 since February 1993 and also in the Employment Gazette.

  Edinburgh Summit
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the assumption made at the Edinburgh summit with regard to increases in own resources related to cohesion and other aspects; and if he will set out the extent to which those assumptions have been fulfilled.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]:The Edinburgh European Council agreed the following own resources ceilings:

  Own resources ceiling (percentage of European Community GNP)

  Year

  Percentage

  1993

  1·20

  1994

  1·20

  1995

  1·21

  1996

  1·22

  1997

  1·24

  1998

  1·26

  1999

  1·27

  The own resources ceiling is an upper limit on the Community's own resources, not a target. The ceilings for 1995 to 1999 will be included in a new own resources decision, which will be put before the House for approval once a text has been agreed by the Council of Ministers.
  165
  Definitive outturn figures for the level of own resources called up for the 1993 Community budget are not yet available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Weapons Sales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs visited Rio; what weapons he was attempting to sell; which country he was attempting to sell them to; and which companies he was assisting.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have made no ministerial visits to Brazil.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for how many regular publications he was responsible in 1993–94 or the latest year for which figures are available; what was their circulation; and how many were obtainable by subscription.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department publishes a regular "Guide for Business" available free on request to United Kingdom firms with a current print run of 75,000 and the yearly "Expenditure Plans" report—DTI's annual report—which is a sale publication via Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Two regular magazines are also distributed free of charge: "Overseas Trade" with a circulation of 32,000, with copies available to exporting firms, and "Review" with a circulation of 30,000 and available to those interested in renewable energy.

  A number of other annual reports, regular bulletins and newsletters on various business, energy and consumer issues are published. A comprehensive list is not held centrally but some of the main publications are listed in the "Guide for Business" and the "Expenditure Plans" report.

  Company Invoices
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expect to respond to the consultation exercise on the late payment of company invoices.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The late payment of commercial debt consultation concluded on 31 March 1994. A decision will be announced as soon as possible.

  Departmental Laboratories and Agencies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of employment in whole-time equivalents in each of his Department's laboratories and agencies in each of the last three years and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Number of permanent staff (whole-time equivalent)

  April 1991

  April 1992

  April 1993

  April 1994

  Accounts Services Agency

  86

  88·5

  88·5

  91

  Companies House

  1,081·5

  1,093

  983·5

  967

  Insolvency Service

  1,483·5

  1,549

  1,572·5

  1,600

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  340

  330·5

  313·5

  301

  166

  April 1991

  April 1992

  April 1993

  April 1994

  National Engineering Laboratory

  389

  388·5

  363·5

  285·5

  National Physical Laboratory

  827·5

  808

  767·5

  698·5

  National Weights Measures Laboratory

  42·5

  47·5

  48

  43·5

  Patent Office

  1,194

  1,037

  1,009

  954

  Radiocommunications Agency

  501·5

  517

  524·5

  528

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  310

  302·5

  266·5

  1*

  1* Warren Spring Laboratory has now merged with the Atomic Energy Authority to form the National Environmental Technology Centre. Staff in post on 1 March 1994 was 203·5.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provisions he has made for the substantial restructuring costs indicated by his consultants' review of DTI research laboratories; and where that provision will be found in his Department's accounts.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Following the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on 14 April,Official Report, columns 251–53, in respect of my Department's research laboratories, the process of restructuring the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the National Engineering Laboratory and the National Physical Laboratory has now started. The financial provision that each laboratory will require for restructuring has yet to be finalised. The relevant sums will be published in my Department's Supply Estimates class IV vote 1 in due course.

  Condom Manufacture
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what effect the increase in the nominal exchange rate against the lira and the peseta since February 1993 has had on the profitability of condom manufacture in the United Kingdom; and if he will publish the increase in producer prices in terms of the ecu in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Italy and (c) Spain since February 1993 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Since February 1993, the nominal exchange rate of the lira against the pound has increased by 9 per cent. and the nominal exchange rate of the peseta against the pound has increased by 22 per cent. The Department is not in a position to assess the effect of exchange rate changes on the profitability of condom manufacture in the United Kingdom. Changes in producer prices in terms of the ecu can be readily derived from "Industrial Trends Monthly Statistics", published by EuroStat, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Internal Air Flights
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to order an investigation into the fare structure and prices charged for United Kingdom internal air flights.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Such investigations are a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, and any concerns that the hon. Member has should be referred to the authority.

  Pyramid Selling
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will amend the regulations relating to pyramid selling to encompass all companies involved in transactions away from business premises.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Pyramid Selling Schemes Regulations are irrelevant to many transactions carried out away from business premises, including sales by a company where the sales force consists of its employees.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will amend the regulations regarding pyramid selling to provide an unlimited right for participants to return goods for a full refund regardless of condition within 90 days from commencement of their business.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. Such a right would impose unwarranted compliance costs on trading which is subject to the regulations. This would put this method of trading at an unjustified competitive disadvantage.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will bring forward legislation to outlaw any business scheme of pyramid selling requiring payments purely for the benefit of registration where there is no supply of goods and services to consumers outside the scheme;

  (2) if he will bring forward proposals to enable trading standards officers to be responsible for enforcement of regulations regarding pyramid selling.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have, at present, no plans to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 in this way.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the limit of purchases by those involved in pyramid selling within the first seven days of business.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Although this was not raised by anyone in response to our deregulation consultation over this legislation, I have since received one such representation. In addition, I have had many representations on behalf of one company that considers this limit to be ineffective in providing protection to participants.

  Coal Authority
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria will be used to select members of the coal authority; when he will announce members of this body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Coal Industry Bill, which provides for the establishment of the Coal Authority, would require my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in appointing members of the Coal Authority, to have regard to the desirability of appointing people with experience of, and who have shown capacity in, matters relevant to the authority's functions. My right hon. Friend would hope to indicate in the coming weeks who he would have it in mind to appoint in due course.

  Coal Industry Pensions
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what agreement has been reached between the Government and the trustees of the British Coal pension schemes on future arrangements for pensions from these schemes after privatisation.
  168
  Mr. Eggar
  Comprehensive agreements have been reached between the Government and the trustees of the mineworkers' pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme on future arrangements for the MPS and SSS after the privatisation of British Coal. The main elements of the agreement are as follows:

  (i) all pensioners and deferred pensioners of the MPS and SSS and all contributing members will be able to leave their past-service entitlements in the scheme at privatisation, if they so choose; the MPS and SSS will be closed to new members at privatisation and the new private-sector owners of the industry will not participate in the schemes;

  (ii) the schemes will be given a Government solvency guarantee that will ensure that pensions and deferred pensions are increased annually after privatisation in line with the retail price index by reference to their level at privatisation; MPS and SSS beneficiaries will in addition be able to benefit from any fund surpluses through bonus enhancements over and above RPI-linked levels; surpluses after 31 March 1994, and bonus enhancements paid from them, will not be guaranteed by the Government but the Government will guarantee that, in the event of a deficiency in the MPS or SSS which results in bonus enhancements being reduced, pensions—RPI-linked pension plus bonus enhancement—will not fall in cash terms;

  (iii) an investment reserve will be established in each scheme fund on which the first call will be made if a deficiency arises; the reserve will comprise British Coal's unused shares of the September 1993 surplus in the MPS and of the April 1992 surplus in the SSS; the investment reserve will therefore act as a measure of protection for bonus augmentations; the first use of any surplus following a deficiency will be to make up the investment reserve to the level that it would have been at had no deficiency payment been made;

  (iv) the investment reserve will be run down over a period of not less than 25 years by transfers to the Government as guarantor; at each valuation the scheme actuary will recommend the level of reserve to be maintained, taking prudent account of total liabilities and the smooth running of fund management, and the scale of any transfer; it is likely that transfers will be skewed towards the second half of the period; and individual transfer could be spread, on the advice of the scheme actuary, over a period of three years;

  (v) scheme beneficiaries and the Government as guarantor, will receive equal shares of any distributable surpluses from valuations after 31 March 1994; any share of such a surplus that becomes payable to the Government will be receivable in equal instalments over 10 years; deficiency payments due under the guarantee will also be payable over ten years;

  (iv) existing obligations on British Coal to make additional contributions in respect of early and enhanced pensions will be honoured in full by the Government;

  (vii) there will normally be triennial valuations of the schemes and if a valuation subsequent to a deficiency reveals a surplus, or vice versa, there will be a settling of balances before further payments by or to Government are determined, including a safeguard to ensure that beneficiaries and Government have received equal shares of any surplus distribution;

  (viii) the Government will propose amendments to the Coal Industry Bill, currently under consideration in another place, which would make the Secretary of State's powers to modify the MPS and SSS subject to a time limit of two years from the commencement of the solvency guarantee and would focus the Secretary of State's powers to direct the trustees on the twin objectives of avoiding and minimising fund deficiencies and maximising the potential for fund surpluses.

  The agreement will necessitate amendments to the draft modified MPS and SSS schemes and rules and draft MPS and SSS guarantee deeds that have been placed in the Library of the House.

  As a result of the restructuring and closure of the MPS and SSS it will be necessary to review the schemes' investment strategy. The appropriate strategy for the modified schemes will be developed by the trustees, in consultation with Government, in the light of advice from the schemes' actuary and from their investment advisers.

  169
  The aim of the investment strategy review will be to achieve a strategy which reflects the twin objectives of minimising the risk and extent of a call on the guarantee and maximising investment returns.

  I know that the MPS and SSS trustees attach particular importance to understanding how the Secretary of State might use the powers that the Coal Industry Bill would confer on him to secure that the trustees take account of the twin objectives of minimising the risk and extent of a call on the guarantee and maximising investment returns. I can assure the trustees that the Secretary of State, as guarantor, would only expect to exercise the powers conferred on him under the schemes to intervene in the day-to-day management of the scheme funds in the most exceptional circumstances. Any use of his powers would, therefore, normally only arise in the context of strategic investment policy or strategic investment decisions. He would intend only to use his powers in circumstances—which one hopes would be rare—where he considers it is necessary to do so to secure either of the twin objectives of minimising the risk and extent of calls on the guarantee or maximising surpluses. The schemes will also provide that he would, in any event, only exercise his powers after consultation with the trustees, unless in exceptional circumstances such consultation is impractical. The Secretary of State would also consult the trustees before changing the policy stated above. It may assist the trustees if I also point out that this of course does not preclude the Secretary of State having regard to other factors including the interests of beneficiaries to the extent that he considers appropriate.

  There has been concern about the appointment of "Government" trustees, including the chairman, to the modified MPS and SSS. I should therefore like to confirm that the Government-appointed trustees will act as normal trustees, guided by their fiduciary duties. I should also like to make clear that future chairmen of the modified MPS and SSS will not be Crown servants or members of the schemes and will be appointed by the Secretary of State only after consultation with the respective trustees. In practice, no proposed chairman will be acceptable unless supported by a clear majority of the trustees.

  I am pleased to announce that the Government intend to offer the current chairmen of the MPS and SSS, Mr. James Cowan and Sir Norman Siddall, re-appointment as chairmen for the first six months of operation of the modified schemes. I believe that their acceptance would greatly assist the transition to the new arrangements and would provide considerable reassurance to scheme members.

  The arrangements outlined here concern the future of the past service pension entitlements in the MPS and SSS of employees and former employees of British Coal and its subsidiaries. The Coal Industry Bill also provides for the creation of two new industry-wide pension schemes, one following on from the MPS and one from the SSS, for the future service entitlements of employees of British Coal and it subsidiaries who are transferred to employment in successor companies. The Government's proposals for these new industry-wide schemes, including protected person status for transferred employees, are not affected by the arrangements set out in this answer.

  Mr. Harold Bolter
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what position Harold Bolter currently holds for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Yorkshire Rider
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice he has received from the Director General of Fair Trading concerning any reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the takeover of Yorkshire Rider by Badgerline; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not received any advice from the Director General of Fair Trading on the proposed acquisition by Badgerline of Yorkshire Rider. The DGFT's view on the information he has received is that the transaction does not appear to qualify for investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the mergers provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the re-equipment costs, in actual and marginal terms, to the consumer of replacing existing analogue television sets and video recorders resulting from any Government decision to compel a move from analogue terrestrial television broadcasting to a digital system.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]:There has been no decision to compel a move from analogue terrestrial television broadcasting to digital systems. Neither is any form of compulsion on consumers envisaged for the future. The last precedent of a change of TV standard was the 405-line to 625-line change. This was achieved by natural replacement of television sets. Studies are being undertaken by the Radiocommunications Agency to see whether enough frequency channels exist to allow near national coverage of a digital terrestrial broadcasting service sometime in the future. This would be a prerequisite for eventually being able to switch off the analogue television networks. But in the short to medium term any move to digital terrestrial broadcasting is likely to be an opportunity both for broadcasters and viewers and not a requirement. As such there are no costs falling on consumers from compelling a move from analogue to digital. The United Kingdom network and consumer equipment market for digital video broadcasting is expected to be worth £5 billion to £10 billion over 15 years.

  European Funds
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list at current prices the total amount of funds which England received from the European Union structural fund in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]:There are no comprehensive figures for allocations to England from the structural funds, as the European agricultural

  171
  guidance and guarantee fund, guidance section, and parts of the European social fund are not allocated regionally. Allocations to England from the European regional development fund have been:

  Year

  £ million, current prices

  1979

  58

  1980

  80

  1981

  74

  1982

  114

  1983

  112

  1984

  197

  1985

  195

  1986

  190

  1987

  230

  1988

  172

  1989

  151

  1990

  208

  1991

  199

  1992

  296

  1993

  310

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list at current prices the total amount of funds available under each of the European structural funds for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]: The total amounts allocated from each of the structural funds from 1979 to 1993 have been as follows:

  Total EC structural funds allocations

  Million ecu, current prices

  Year

  ERDF

  ESF

  EAGGF

  Total structural funds

  1979

  962

  775

  460

  2,197

  1980

  1,138

  1,015

  625

  2,778

  1981

  1,637

  996

  721

  3,354

  1982

  1,845

  1,510

  757

  4,112

  1983

  2,127

  1,878

  866

  4,871

  1984

  2,383

  1,854

  796

  5,033

  1985

  2,495

  2,189

  853

  5,537

  1986

  3,328

  2,523

  854

  6,705

  1987

  3,662

  3,524

  941

  8,127

  1988

  3,827

  2,871

  1,180

  7,878

  1989

  4,666

  3,478

  1,462

  9,606

  1990

  5,227

  3,505

  1,925

  10,657

  1991

  7,162

  4,787

  2,640

  14,589

  1992

  8,903

  5,881

  3,471

  18,255

  1993

  10,437

  6,408

  3,769

  20,614

  Note: Greece benefited from 1981 and Spain and Portugal from 1986.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 April,Official Report, column 171, if he will list the Community initiatives under which European funds have been made available since 1989.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]: Community structural funds initiatives launched since 1989 have been ENVIREG, INTERREG, PRISMA, RECHAR, REGEN, REGIS, STRIDE, TELEMATIQUE, LEADER, EUROFORM, NOW, HORIZON, RETEX and KONVER.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what budgets have been allocated for each of the European Community initiatives launched since 1989.
  172
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]: Allocations to each of the Community initiatives launched since 1989 have been:

  Community initiatives

  million ecu, 1994 prices

  ENVIREG

  590

  INTERREG

  970

  PRISMA

  120

  RECHAR

  390

  REGEN

  390

  REGIS

  280

  STRIDE

  480

  TELEMATIQUE

  240

  LEADER

  470

  EUROFORM

  300

  NOW

  148

  HORIZON

  220

  RETEX

  100

  KONVER

  130

  Pubic Appointments
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions he has used his power to overturn appointments recommended by the regulators of utilities or other non-elected public bodies over the last five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade does not have powers to overturn these appointments. Where regulators and others are required to consult the President of the Board of Trade, they do so, and take account of the response. The question of overturning appointments does not therefore arise.

PRIME MINISTER

  State Property, Downing Street
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) who maintains the inventory of state property at Downing street;

  (2) who is the appointed auditor responsible as part of his duties for checking the Downing street inventory; when the inventory was last checked; and what was the result of that check.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no single inventory of state property at No. 10. Separate inventories are maintained for differing purposes. Those responsible for maintaining them are also responsible for making periodic checks of the items against inventory. Cabinet Office internal auditors are free to check the inventories at any time they wish.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants (Dismissal)
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants who have been the subject of adverse published reports have been dismissed during the past 12 months.

  Mr. David Davis
  Civil servants, like other employees, can be dismissed only if personal culpability is established
  173
  in the course of properly constituted disciplinary or criminal proceedings. A number of such proceedings have resulted in dismissal during the last 12 months, although details are not held centrally and I am not aware of any such civil servants who have been named in adverse published reports.

  Forward Look
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the first Forward Look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology will be published.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The first Forward Look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology is being published today. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I am also placing in the Libraries copies of the advice we have received from outside bodies on the Forward Look.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Leytonstone Fire Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will clarify the London fire and civil defence authority's proposals for reducing the effect of diesel exhaust emissions from fire appliances turning out from Leytonstone fire station on that fire station's personnel.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I am informed by the chief fire officer that provision has been made in the minor improvements programme for 1994–95 for the staircase at Leytonstone fire station to be altered and enclosed.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state by police authority in England(a) the cost of police per unit D of council tax,
  (b) the number of police per square mile and
  (c) expenditure per head of population.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is given in the table. Police coverage by area is normally expressed as hectares per officer.

  Cost of police per unit D of council tax, hectares covered per police officer and expenditure on the police per head of population

  Police force

  Cost per unit D of council tax1 (£)

  Hectares covered per officer2

  Expenditure per head of population3 (£)

  Avon and Somerset

  263

  155

  90

  Bedfordshire

  268

  105

  89

  Cambridgeshire

  265

  275

  86

  Cheshire

  245

  121

  83

  Cleveland

  395

  39

  113

  Cumbria

  317

  574

  103

  Derbyshire

  273

  142

  85

  Devon and Cornwall

  254

  351

  89

  Dorset

  238

  204

  91

  Durham

  330

  175

  92

  Essex

  254

  122

  91

  Gloucestershire

  273

  223

  98

  Greater Manchester

  397

  18

  116

  Hampshire

  236

  127

  83

  Hertfordshire

  223

  88

  87

  Humberside

  347

  173

  100

  174

  Police force

  Cost per unit D of council tax1 (£)

  Hectares covered per officer2

  Expenditure per head of population3 (£)

  Kent

  273

  119

  98

  Lancashire

  325

  95

  99

  Leicestershire

  270

  138

  83

  Lincolnshire

  290

  490

  91

  Merseyside

  494

  14

  139

  Norfolk

  248

  371

  82

  Northamptonshire

  300

  199

  94

  Northumbria

  363

  154

  104

  North Yorkshire

  246

  586

  87

  Nottinghamshire

  324

  92

  96

  South Yorkshire

  345

  51

  96

  Staffordshire

  283

  123

  87

  Suffolk

  247

  308

  82

  Surrey

  229

  88

  98

  Sussex

  219

  126

  85

  Thames Valley

  241

  151

  90

  Warwickshire

  275

  194

  97

  West Mercia

  235

  361

  80

  West Midlands

  397

  13

  113

  West Yorkshire

  382

  39

  111

  Wiltshire

  273

  295

  97

  City of London

  19,979

  0·34

  12,772

  Metropolitan

  522

  7

  207

  1 Based on estimated expenditure for 1993–94 and 1993–94 taxbase.

  2 Based on police force establishment at 31 December 1993.

  3 Based on estimated expenditure for 1993–94 and population as at June 1992.

  Prison Sentences
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to require criminals convicted of murder or serious physical offences against police officers to be sentenced to a fixed period of imprisonment to which only special limited rules of remission would apply; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Life imprisonment is already the mandatory sentence for murder of a police officer. There are no plans to introduce mandatory sentences for other offences committed against police officers or to introduce special release arrangements for offenders convicted of such offences.

  Physical Restraints
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the prison governor and doctor are always informed when a prisoner is put into physical restraint; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 27 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisoners put into physical restraints. In a prison, if a prisoner is put into physical restraints, other than the temporary application of ratchet handcuffs, the governor and medical officer must be informed.
  Where a prisoner is escorted outside the prison, for example to attend court, the medical officer need not be told if handcuffs are to be used, since it is the normal presumption that they will be used. If any other form of restraint is to be used outside the prison, the medical officer must be informed.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female officers there were in each constabulary and at each rank per constabulary in England and Wales in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1993.

  Table 1 Police service in England and Wales Strength for ordinary duty return for 31 December 1990 Male ranks

  Police force name

  Chief Constable

  Deputy Chief

  Assistant Chief

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total Male ranks

  Total police ranks

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  1

  3

  13

  38

  67

  149

  463

  2,034

  2,769

  3,059

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  15

  20

  50

  138

  689

  920

  1,064

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  12

  24

  59

  189

  772

  1,064

  1,186

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  2

  6

  22

  33

  105

  270

  1,235

  1,675

  1,898

  City of London

  1

  1

  1

  6

  11

  20

  53

  118

  494

  705

  796

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  2

  6

  17

  26

  86

  230

  959

  1,328

  1,485

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  1

  7

  19

  24

  69

  188

  749

  1,059

  1,189

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  25

  33

  92

  251

  1,155

  1,567

  1,751

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  2

  13

  35

  47

  131

  446

  1,910

  2,586

  2,867

  Dorset

  1

  1

  1

  5

  16

  22

  69

  187

  826

  1,128

  1,272

  Durham

  1

  1

  2

  4

  17

  28

  78

  209

  913

  1,253

  1,364

  Essex

  1

  1

  3

  11

  31

  59

  122

  423

  1,911

  2,562

  2,884

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  14

  20

  56

  165

  786

  1,050

  1,158

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  6

  26

  92

  127

  395

  1,024

  4,458

  6,130

  7,010

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  3

  11

  36

  53

  132

  466

  2,146

  2,849

  3,170

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  22

  31

  87

  240

  1,032

  1,423

  1,659

  Humberside

  1

  1

  2

  8

  23

  36

  106

  312

  1,341

  1,830

  1,989

  Kent

  1

  1

  3

  12

  36

  46

  171

  413

  1,934

  2,617

  2,988

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  3

  13

  39

  72

  159

  507

  2,065

  2,860

  3,199

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  1

  7

  22

  30

  102

  274

  1,141

  1,579

  1,784

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  0

  4

  10

  24

  64

  194

  788

  1,086

  1,205

  Merseyside

  1

  1

  3

  18

  60

  79

  256

  727

  2,967

  4,112

  4,679

  Metropolitan Police

  6

  14

  31

  153

  249

  502

  1,428

  4,181

  18,046

  24,610

  28,152

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  6

  17

  22

  65

  194

  972

  1,279

  1,394

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  13

  22

  71

  165

  752

  1,032

  1,144

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  3

  13

  49

  61

  189

  508

  2,361

  3,186

  3,528

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  14

  25

  76

  203

  917

  1,246

  1,379

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  1

  2

  8

  28

  32

  128

  329

  1,604

  2,133

  2,342

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  3

  11

  38

  43

  163

  440

  1,964

  2,664

  2,984

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  2

  11

  31

  49

  121

  328

  1,367

  1,911

  2,193

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  1

  6

  17

  18

  56

  177

  795

  1,072

  1,195

  Surrey

  1

  1

  2

  7

  22

  24

  90

  244

  1,055

  1,446

  1,654

  Sussex

  1

  1

  3

  10

  32

  39

  175

  441

  1,984

  2,686

  2,984

  Thames Valley

  1

  1

  3

  11

  35

  47

  174

  481

  2,461

  3,214

  3,706

  Warwickshire

  1

  1

  0

  5

  14

  16

  61

  155

  651

  904

  1,014

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  2

  11

  27

  40

  126

  290

  1,277

  1,775

  2,022

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  4

  25

  78

  118

  375

  1,034

  4,256

  5,892

  6,881

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  5

  19

  69

  79

  279

  793

  3,416

  4,662

  5,276

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  16

  24

  58

  182

  752

  1,041

  1,157

  Dyfed Powys

  1

  1

  1

  7

  13

  21

  36

  152

  615

  847

  936

  Gwent

  1

  1

  1

  5

  14

  17

  46

  154

  668

  907

  1,001

  North Wales

  1

  1

  2

  7

  25

  27

  66

  203

  868

  1,200

  1,339

  South Wales

  1

  1

  3

  14

  39

  62

  175

  528

  2,028

  2,851

  3,123

  Total all forces

  48

  56

  118

  548

  1,452

  2,209

  6,549

  18,616

  81,114

  110,710

  125,060

  Police service in England and Wales Strength for ordinary duty return for 31 December 1990 Female ranks

  Police force name

  Chief Constable

  Deputy Chief

  Assistant Chief

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total female ranks

  Total police ranks

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  12

  273

  290

  3,059

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  8

  132

  144

  1,064

  Cambrideshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  5

  115

  122

  1,186

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  22

  196

  223

  1,898

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  10

  78

  91

  796

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  8

  7

  140

  157

  1,485

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  125

  130

  1,189

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  8

  6

  167

  184

  1,751

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  14

  263

  281

  2,867

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  7

  132

  144

  1,272

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  4

  105

  111

  1,364

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  7

  23

  291

  322

  2,884

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  105

  108

  1,158

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  13

  47

  815

  880

  7,010

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  12

  305

  321

  3,170

  176
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information for 1990 and 1993 is provided in tables 1 and 2. Information for 1980 and 1985 in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Tables 3 and 4 show police strength by rank for those years. Information on overall proportions of male and female officers in each force is contained in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, copies of which are in the Library.
  177

  Police force name

  Chief Constable

  Deputy Chief

  Assistant Chief

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total female ranks

  Total police ranks

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  11

  222

  236

  1,659

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  6

  149

  159

  1,989

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  21

  345

  371

  2,988

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  6

  17

  313

  339

  3,199

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  13

  185

  205

  1,784

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  4

  109

  119

  1,205

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  2

  6

  36

  519

  567

  4,679

  Metropolitan Police

  0

  0

  0

  3

  8

  13

  29

  261

  3,228

  3,542

  28,152

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  7

  106

  115

  1,394

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  107

  112

  1,144

  Northumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  16

  319

  342

  3,528

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  10

  121

  133

  1,379

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  9

  198

  209

  2,342

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  13

  300

  320

  2,984

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  14

  265

  282

  2,193

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  5

  115

  123

  1,195

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  12

  194

  208

  1,654

  Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  19

  276

  298

  2,984

  Thames Valley

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  4

  21

  462

  492

  3,706

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  3

  103

  110

  1,014

  West Mercia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  11

  233

  247

  2,022

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  15

  58

  912

  989

  6,881

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  10

  27

  574

  614

  5,276

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  7

  107

  116

  1,157

  Dyfed Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  85

  89

  936

  Gwent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  87

  94

  1,001

  North Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  8

  129

  139

  1,339

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  15

  253

  272

  3,123

  Total all forces

  0

  0

  1

  9

  30

  52

  181

  819

  13,258

  14,350

  125,060

  Table 2 Police service in England and Wales Strength for ordinary duty return for 31 December 1993 Male ranks

  Police force name

  Chief Constable

  Deputy Chief

  Assistant Chief

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total male ranks

  Total police ranks

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  1

  3

  9

  29

  51

  159

  452

  1,993

  2,698

  3,034

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  4

  13

  15

  56

  148

  754

  993

  1,168

  Cambrideshire

  1

  1

  1

  2

  13

  23

  60

  189

  823

  1,113

  1,266

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  1

  4

  19

  29

  104

  269

  1,219

  1,647

  1,873

  City of London

  0

  1

  0

  5

  9

  18

  54

  124

  556

  767

  884

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  2

  0

  11

  20

  83

  204

  926

  1,248

  1,414

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  1

  6

  15

  21

  70

  182

  734

  1,031

  1,185

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  2

  5

  21

  30

  92

  258

  1,171

  1,581

  1,790

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  3

  9

  37

  47

  134

  444

  1,879

  2,555

  2,908

  Dorset

  1

  1

  1

  6

  17

  24

  70

  191

  821

  1,132

  1,292

  Durham

  1

  1

  1

  5

  16

  20

  76

  208

  906

  1,234

  1,389

  Essex

  1

  0

  3

  10

  31

  53

  131

  431

  1,888

  2,548

  2,947

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  4

  11

  22

  57

  161

  746

  1,004

  1,140

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  5

  22

  76

  112

  403

  996

  4,443

  6,059

  7,047

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  3

  5

  37

  42

  143

  484

  2,132

  2,848

  3,270

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  2

  5

  20

  32

  87

  236

  1,033

  1,417

  1,679

  Humberside

  1

  1

  2

  8

  15

  35

  98

  290

  1,362

  1,812

  2,028

  Kent

  1

  1

  3

  10

  26

  45

  178

  420

  2,034

  2,718

  3,182

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  3

  9

  34

  63

  165

  484

  1,977

  2,737

  3,140

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  17

  25

  103

  267

  1,169

  1,590

  1,838

  Lincolnshire

  1

  0

  1

  4

  12

  19

  62

  185

  779

  1,063

  1,203

  Merseyside

  1

  1

  3

  17

  58

  71

  252

  705

  2,904

  4,012

  4,663

  Metropolitan Police

  5

  13

  28

  113

  212

  452

  1,362

  4,262

  17,286

  23,733

  27,605

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  5

  14

  23

  65

  203

  970

  1,283

  1,434

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  1

  4

  14

  22

  68

  161

  772

  1,044

  1,181

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  2

  10

  36

  57

  168

  500

  2,402

  3,177

  3,589

  North Yorkshire

  1

  0

  2

  4

  11

  23

  69

  195

  876

  1,181

  1,333

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  1

  2

  6

  24

  27

  123

  323

  1,549

  2,056

  2,337

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  3

  12

  35

  43

  160

  430

  1,945

  2,630

  3,015

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  2

  8

  23

  40

  117

  330

  1,352

  1,874

  2,202

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  1

  5

  16

  18

  63

  178

  779

  1,062

  1,216

  Surrey

  1

  1

  1

  6

  19

  18

  82

  249

  1,062

  1,439

  1,667

  Sussex

  1

  1

  2

  6

  28

  36

  172

  430

  1,952

  2,628

  2,977

  Thames Valley

  1

  1

  2

  9

  35

  43

  185

  486

  2,565

  3,327

  3,894

  Warwickshire

  1

  1

  1

  3

  14

  16

  55

  152

  641

  884

  1,025

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  2

  7

  24

  36

  128

  284

  1,308

  1,791

  2,056

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  4

  20

  76

  95

  363

  978

  4,295

  5,833

  6,968

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  4

  8

  49

  70

  258

  728

  3,227

  4,346

  4,988

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  11

  20

  65

  185

  825

  1,114

  1,273

  Dyfed Powys

  1

  1

  1

  3

  13

  20

  41

  150

  617

  847

  966

  Gwent

  0

  1

  1

  4

  11

  14

  44

  149

  649

  873

  989

  North Wales

  1

  1

  1

  7

  21

  26

  67

  215

  845

  1,184

  1 341

  South Wales

  1

  1

  3

  7

  32

  51

  165

  496

  2,098

  2,854

  3,142

  178 179

  Police force name

  Chief Constable

  Deputy Chief

  Assistant Chief

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total Male ranks

  Total police ranks

  Total all forces

  45

  52

  108

  407

  1,255

  1,967

  6,457

  18,412

  80,264

  108,967

  125,538

  Police service in England and Wales Strength for ordinary duty return for 31 December 1993 Female ranks

  Police force name

  Chief Constable

  Deputy Chief

  Assistant Chief

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total Female ranks

  Total police ranks

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  17

  312

  336

  3,034

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  11

  159

  175

  1,168

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  10

  141

  153

  1,266

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  24

  196

  226

  1,873

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  6

  105

  117

  884

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  12

  148

  166

  1,414

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  147

  154

  1,185

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  7

  195

  209

  1,790

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  19

  328

  353

  2,908

  Dorset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  12

  145

  160

  1,292

  Durham

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  7

  146

  155

  1,389

  Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  11

  23

  364

  399

  2,947

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  128

  136

  1,140

  Greater Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  17

  65

  899

  988

  7,047

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  19

  396

  422

  3,270

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  13

  247

  262

  1,679

  Humberside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  11

  203

  216

  2,028

  Kent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  36

  423

  464

  3,182

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  7

  24

  370

  403

  3,140

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  4

  14

  226

  248

  1,838

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  10

  125

  140

  1,203

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  3

  11

  53

  581

  651

  4,663

  Metropolitan Police

  0

  0

  0

  4

  7

  8

  39

  297

  3,517

  3,872

  27,605

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  7

  141

  151

  1,434

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  7

  128

  137

  1,181

  Northumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  7

  16

  386

  412

  3,589

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  4

  143

  152

  1,333

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  9

  267

  281

  2,337

  South Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  1

  25

  354

  385

  3,015

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  12

  311

  328

  2,202

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  7

  144

  154

  1,216

  Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  19

  204

  228

  1,667

  Sussex

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  32

  312

  349

  2,977

  Thames Valley

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  2

  8

  30

  522

  567

  3,894

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  2

  135

  141

  1,025

  West Mercia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  17

  245

  265

  2,056

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  20

  76

  1,033

  1,135

  6,968

  West Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  13

  28

  597

  642

  4,988

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  9

  146

  159

  1,273

  Dyfed Powys

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  112

  119

  966

  Gwent

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  5

  108

  116

  989

  North Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  7

  146

  157

  1,341

  South Wales

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  23

  260

  288

  3,142

  Total all forces

  0

  0

  3

  11

  27

  54

  237

  1,044

  15,195

  16,571

  125,538

  Police Service strength by rank in England and Wales as at 31 December 1980

  Police Force

  Chief Constable

  Deputy Chief Constable

  Assistant Chief Constable

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Totals

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  1

  3

  13

  38

  70

  148

  465

  2,223

  2,962

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  15

  17

  51

  140

  732

  963

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  15

  24

  52

  177

  810

  1,086

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  2

  8

  22

  31

  105

  282

  1,381

  1,833

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  2

  7

  20

  28

  89

  229

  1,077

  1,454

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  1

  7

  17

  24

  69

  172

  812

  1,104

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  2

  8

  28

  34

  101

  254

  1,403

  1,832

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  3

  15

  32

  56

  134

  444

  2,035

  2,721

  Dorset

  1

  —

  1

  5

  14

  22

  61

  179

  884

  1,167

  Durham

  1

  1

  2

  8

  19

  29

  69

  208

  1,008

  1,345

  Dyfed Powys

  1

  1

  1

  7

  10

  25

  36

  155

  693

  929

  Essex

  1

  1

  3

  11

  28

  60

  113

  416

  1,976

  2,609

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  14

  20

  57

  170

  849

  1,119

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  6

  29

  93

  150

  421

  1,083

  5,139

  6,923

  Gwent

  1

  1

  1

  6

  10

  22

  14

  147

  741

  973

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  3

  14

  30

  65

  127

  433

  2,384

  3,058

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  2

  9

  22

  31

  82

  246

  1,124

  1,518

  180 181

  Police Force

  Chief Constable

  Deputy Chief Constable

  Assistant Chief Constable

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Totals

  Humberside

  1

  1

  2

  10

  27

  38

  103

  315

  1,454

  1,951

  Kent

  1

  1

  4

  11

  33

  54

  167

  418

  2,182

  2,871

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  4

  16

  44

  70

  159

  513

  2,312

  3,120

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  25

  36

  91

  282

  1,275

  1,720

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  15

  29

  63

  181

  884

  1,183

  Merseyside

  1

  1

  5

  20

  61

  72

  234

  709

  3,488

  4,591

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  7

  15

  25

  65

  191

  943

  1,249

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  1

  7

  12

  25

  54

  149

  722

  971

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  3

  13

  50

  60

  190

  504

  2,518

  3,340

  North Wales

  1

  1

  1

  7

  18

  29

  62

  205

  966

  1,290

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  18

  30

  80

  201

  1,012

  1,352

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  1

  2

  9

  35

  42

  132

  319

  1,668

  2,209

  South Wales

  1

  1

  2

  13

  42

  62

  179

  521

  2,247

  3,068

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  3

  11

  38

  44

  150

  428

  2,166

  2,842

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  2

  10

  26

  46

  102

  329

  1,554

  2,071

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  1

  5

  11

  28

  55

  165

  855

  1,122

  Surrey

  1

  —

  2

  7

  22

  29

  78

  245

  1,205

  1,589

  Sussex

  1

  1

  3

  13

  39

  44

  155

  460

  2,107

  2,823

  Thames Valley

  1

  1

  3

  12

  41

  63

  139

  460

  2,323

  3,043

  Warwickshire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  12

  19

  56

  140

  680

  916

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  2

  10

  30

  38

  119

  268

  1,470

  1,939

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  6

  20

  80

  111

  355

  1,019

  4,946

  6,539

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  6

  26

  71

  88

  287

  808

  3,752

  5,040

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  11

  23

  48

  148

  793

  1,032

  City of London

  11

  21

  31

  7

  12

  18

  61

  141

  601

  843

  Metropolitan

  16

  216

  354

  193

  219

  431

  1,236

  3,789

  17,618

  23,562

  TOTALS

  47

  56

  151

  623

  1,434

  2,262

  6,179

  18,108

  87,012

  115,872

  1Includes ranks of assistant commissioner and above in Metropolitan police, and commissioner in City of London police.

  2 Includes deputy assistant commissioner in Metropolitan police, and assistant commissioner in City of London police.

  3Includes commanders in Metropolitan police and City of London police.

  Table 4 Police service strength by rank England and Wales as at 31 December 1985

  Police force

  Chief Constable

  Deputy Chief Constable

  Assistant Chief Constable

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Totals

  Avon and Somerset

  1

  1

  3

  13

  38

  69

  152

  464

  2,224

  2,965

  Bedfordshire

  1

  —

  1

  5

  15

  19

  52

  139

  750

  982

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  14

  25

  57

  182

  855

  1,141

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  2

  8

  22

  28

  103

  279

  1,359

  1,803

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  2

  6

  19

  27

  93

  235

  1,077

  1,461

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  1

  7

  17

  25

  71

  173

  824

  1,120

  Derbyshire

  1

  —

  1

  8

  26

  37

  102

  258

  1,332

  1,765

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  1

  3

  13

  36

  49

  133

  431

  2,080

  2,747

  Dorset

  1

  1

  1

  6

  17

  22

  66

  177

  911

  1,202

  Durham

  1

  1

  2

  8

  19

  27

  76

  212

  947

  1,293

  Dyfed Powys

  1

  1

  1

  7

  12

  24

  34

  153

  691

  924

  Essex

  1

  1

  3

  11

  28

  60

  121

  427

  2,026

  2,678

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  15

  18

  58

  174

  877

  1,151

  Greater Manchester

  1

  1

  6

  28

  93

  135

  405

  1,064

  5,046

  6,779

  Gwent

  1

  1

  1

  4

  14

  15

  49

  143

  743

  971

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  3

  12

  31

  56

  126

  437

  2,401

  3,068

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  2

  9

  25

  32

  93

  254

  1,167

  1,584

  Humberside

  1

  1

  1

  8

  24

  38

  107

  319

  1,437

  1,936

  Kent

  1

  1

  3

  12

  33

  48

  176

  427

  2,158

  2,859

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  4

  10

  42

  66

  156

  513

  2,211

  3,004

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  24

  36

  98

  282

  1,299

  1,750

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  12

  22

  66

  179

  854

  1,141

  Merseyside

  1

  1

  3

  19

  61

  77

  248

  739

  3,405

  4,554

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  7

  16

  21

  68

  195

  953

  1,263

  Northamptonshire

  1

  —

  1

  6

  13

  22

  61

  152

  761

  1,017

  Northumbria

  1

  1

  3

  14

  49

  62

  193

  505

  2,540

  3,368

  North Wales

  1

  1

  1

  7

  21

  27

  65

  210

  918

  1,251

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  2

  7

  17

  29

  77

  205

  1,014

  1,353

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  —

  2

  8

  33

  31

  125

  320

  1,694

  2,214

  South Wales

  1

  1

  2

  13

  43

  63

  182

  526

  2,233

  3,064

  South Yorkshire

  1

  1

  3

  11

  37

  44

  160

  446

  2,147

  2,850

  Staffordshire

  1

  1

  2

  11

  30

  48

  116

  329

  1,564

  2,102

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  1

  6

  18

  20

  56

  174

  854

  1,131

  Surrey

  1

  1

  2

  7

  23

  26

  92

  244

  1,231

  1,627

  Sussex

  1

  1

  2

  12

  37

  42

  160

  420

  2,115

  2,790

  Thames Valley

  1

  1

  2

  13

  41

  57

  166

  464

  2,538

  3,283

  Warwickshire

  1

  1

  1

  5

  15

  17

  62

  139

  698

  939

  West Mercia

  1

  1

  2

  10

  30

  39

  128

  298

  1,415

  1,924

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  6

  21

  78

  120

  364

  1,043

  4,921

  6,555

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  4

  22

  69

  87

  284

  810

  3,771

  5,049

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  1

  6

  15

  20

  54

  157

  773

  1,028

  182 183

  Police force

  Chief Constable

  Deputy Chief Constable

  Assistant Chief Constable

  Chief Superintendent

  Superintendent

  Chief Inspector

  Inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Totals

  City of London

  11

  21

  31

  6

  11

  19

  56

  129

  558

  782

  Metropolitan

  16

  217

  340

  185

  249

  491

  1,398

  4,387

  19,886

  26,659

  Totals

  48

  55

  127

  594

  1,482

  2,240

  6,509

  18,814

  89,258

  119,127

  1 Includes ranks of assistant commissioner and above in Metropolitan police, and commissioner in City of London police.

  2 Includes deputy assistant commissioner in Metropolitan police, and assistant commissioner in City of London police.

  3 Includes commanders in Metropolitan in Metropolitan police and City of London police.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how many regular publications he was responsible in 1993–94; what was their circulation; and how many were obtainable by subscription.

  Mr. Howard
  There are around 60 such publications, details of which are included in the Home Office annual report 1994, Cm 2508, pages 95–101, available in the Library of the House. No central record is maintained of the circulation of these publications, but all regular publications may be obtained on standing order from the Home Office or from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Crime Statistics, Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported instances of crime there were in Wales in 1993; what percentage this represents of the same statistic for each of the five preceding years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on notifiable offences recorded by the police in Wales is given in the table.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in Wales

  Year

  Number of offences

  Percentage change over previous year

  1988

  196,457

  +1

  1989

  195,885

  —

  1990

  229,248

  +17

  1991

  271,038

  +18

  1992

  287,258

  +6

  1993

  279,018

  -3

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recruitment procedures were followed leading to the appointment of Sir Peter Woodward as the prisons ombudsman;

  (2) what will be the remit and powers of the prisons ombudsman; and if he will publish his job description;

  (3) how many staff will be appointed to the office of the prisons ombudsman;

  (4) what training his Department will provide for the prisons ombudsman and his staff.

  Concerted Acts of Indiscipline

  1993

  1994

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Total

  Acklington

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Belmarsh

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  7

  Birmingham

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Blakenhurst

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  8

  Bristol

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Bullingdon

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  11

  184
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The recruitment of the prisons ombudsman was conducted by the Civil Service Commission, using public advertisement and an executive search agency.

  Sir Peter Woodhead will consider grievances from prisoners who have failed to obtain satisfaction from the Prison Service's internal complaints system, and he will, where necessary, make recommendations to the Director General of the Prison Service or to the Home Secretary. His full job description was published when the post was advertised and a copy is available in the Library.

  The prisons ombudsman will be supported by 12 staff, including three assistant ombudsmen. An induction programme will be arranged to include visits to prisons and consultations with Prison Service staff.

  Prison Statistics
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department plans to publish information on the reconviction of people released from custody, as stated in "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1991" Cm 2157.

  Mr. Maclean
  The main reconviction results for prisoners discharged in 1987 were given in my reply to the hon. Member on 18 October 1993 at column 133. A full analysis of the results will be published shortly.

  Prison (Indiscipline)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many concerted acts of indiscipline have taken place at each prison in England and Wales in each of the 12 months to March.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 27 April 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many concerted acts of indiscipline have taken at each prison in England and Wales in each of the 12 months to March 1994.M
  The information is given in the attached table.
  185

  1993

  1994

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Total

  Canterbury

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Channings WD

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Chelmsford

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Dartmoor

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Dorchester

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Elmley

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Erlestoke

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Everthorpe

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Exeter

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Featherstone

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Frankland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Full Sutton

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  7

  Garth

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glen Parva

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Haslar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Haverigg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Highdown

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Highpoint

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Holloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Holme House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Lancaster Farms

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Lindholme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Long Lartin

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Low Newton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  The Mount

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Northallerton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Parkhurst

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Portland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Preston

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Pucklechurch

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Risley

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Rochester

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Shepton Mallet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Shrewsbury

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Stoke Heath

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Standford Hill

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Styal

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Swaleside

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  The Verne

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  2

  10

  Wayland

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Wetherby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Whitemoor

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  —

  11

  Winchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  The Wolds

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Woodhill

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wormwood Scrubs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Wymott

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Total

  18

  10

  18

  7

  8

  18

  15

  9

  14

  10

  10

  10

  147

  Young Homeless
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to offer revised guidance concerning checks on those who provide emergency accommodation for the homeless in respect of the effect of the Children Act 1989 on the accommodation of those aged 16 and 17 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None. There is no statutory requirement for police checks to be carried out on those caring for children and the Children Act 1989 made no change to the statutory position.

  Immigration (Yugoslavia and Somalia)
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many individuals from Somalia have been granted visas to enter Britain as students since January 1991; and in how many instances a time limit has been set on their right to remain in Britain;

  (2) how many individuals from Somalia have been granted visas to enter Britain as visitors since January 1991; and in how many instances a time limit has been set on their right to remain in Britain;

  (3) how many individuals from the former Yugoslavia have been granted visas to enter Britain as visitors since January 1991; and in how many instances a time limit has been set on their right to remain in Britain;

  (4) how many individuals from the former Yugoslavia have been granted visas to enter Britain as students since January 1991; and in how many instances a time limit has been set on their right to remain in Britain.
  187
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information relates to nationals of Somalia and the former Yugoslavia given leave to enter the United Kingdom as visitors and students, and is given in the table. Visitors are admitted for a period not exceeding six months. Students can be admitted for a longer specific period depending on their course of study.

  Nationals of Somalia and the former Yugoslavia given leave to enter the United Kingdom as visitors and students

  Number of journeys

  Nationality/category

  1991

  1992

  1193

  Somalia:

  visitors

  1,340

  1,080

  1,370

  students

  20

  40

  30

  Former Yugoslavia:

  visitors

  40,900

  32,000

  26,400

  students

  4,920

  2,080

  3,430

  1 Figures are provisional.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the recruitment and qualifying training of probation officers.

  Mr. Maclean
  A review of the recruitment and qualifying training of probation officers will begin on 3 May. It will be carried out by Miss Vivienne Dews.

  The terms of reference are as follows:
  Having regard to the probation service statement of purpose, responsibilities and operational goals; the Government's public spending plans and the likely future recruitment needs of the probation service; the competences appropriate for different grades of probation service staff; the need to secure maximum value for money from Home Office expenditure on or in connection with the probation service; the need to secure equality of opportunity for entry to the service; and relevant developments in higher education and vocational training generally;

  (a) to review the present qualification requirements governing appointment as a probation officer, and to consider how they might be changed and entry routes into the service enlarged in order to attract those with relevant experiences while maintaining a skilled and balanced workforce; and

  (b) in the light of (a) to review the present scheme for Home Office sponsorship of students undertaking qualifying training and to consider the extent to which and alternative methods by which funding should support probation service qualifying training.

  Independent Monitor (Immigration)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a report will be made available of the work done by the independent monitor appointed by him under section 3AA of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended by section 10 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for Lady Anson, who must make her report by 30 November of this year.

EMPLOYMENT

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the annual rent of the jobcentre at Barnsley and the jobcentre at Wakefield occupied on 5 October 1992 and 19 July 1993.
  188
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the annual rents of the Jobcentres at Barnsley and Wakefield.
  The annual rent of the Barnsley Jobcentre at 15 October 1992 was £237,133.
  The annual rent of the Wakefield Jobcentre at 19 July 1993 was £175,770.
  I hope this is helpful.

  HIV
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he or his ministerial colleagues have had with officials representing any retail establishments, regarding the legal and ethical considerations of screening for the HIV virus; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Employment Ministers have had no such discussions. The Department's policy is set out in our booklet "AIDS and the Work Place—A guide for employers", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. There is no risk to fellow workers or the public from normal work contact—for example, in retail establishments—with an HIV-infected person.

  Advisers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) claimant advisers and (b) new client advisers were in post for each year since these posts were established.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]:Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. Fogden to Mr. Frank Field, dated 27 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on the number of Claimant Advisers and New Client Advisers employed by Employment Services (ES) since the introduction of these posts.
  Our records only go back to the launch of the ES as an Agency in 1990 and the available information is shown below:—

  New client advisers

  Claimant advisers

  1990–91

  2,121

  2,803

  1991–92

  2,529

  3,372

  1992–93

  3,594

  3,122

  1993–94

  3,288

  3,139

  The fluctuations, year on year, are due to two main factors. First, the number of clients who attend our offices affects the number of advisers needed to help them; secondly, changes to the nature of advisory work itself—for instance, the introduction of the new Unified Advisory Service in 92/93—result in variations in the number of staff required.
  I hope this is helpful.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many letters sent by Mr. Simon Godfrey of Warwick in recent months have been lost by the Hastings office of the Child Support Agency; and how many of them were sent by recorded delivery and had been signed for by CSA staff;

  (2) how many complaints about lost correspondence have been received by the Child Support Agency since it began operations; and how many of those letters had been sent by recorded delivery.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Sir Dudley Smith, dated 27 April 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about lost correspondence, particularly in relation to Mr. Simon Godfrey of Warwick.
  Mr. Godfrey wrote to the Child Support Agency Centre at Hastings requesting a review of his maintenance assessment. He was mistakenly informed that this, and a number of subsequent letters, had not been received. The appeals and review manager at the Hastings Centre has written to Mr. Godfrey apologising for the mistake and answering the concerns raised in his letters.
  I hope you will convey to Mr. Godfrey my sincere apologies for the errors made in his case.
  You also asked about the number of complaints the Agency has received about lost correspondence. I am sorry that the Agency does not collect information in the form requested.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-resident parents so far assessed for maintenance by the Child Support Agency are on income support.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 22 April at column 71.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) to what extent the income of the partner and stepchildren of the father of children of a previous relationship is taken into account by the Child Support Agency when a maintenance assessment is made;

  (2) why the income of the partner and stepchildren of a woman applicant is not taken into account by the Child Benefit Agency when a maintenance assessment is made in respect of her former husband or partner.

  Mr. Burt
  Child maintenance assessments are made by the Child Support Agency, using a formula which applies irrespective of whether the father or the mother is the absent parent.

  The agency needs details of the income of an absent parent's new partner for two reasons: first, to assess whether the partner can afford to contribute towards the upkeep of his or her own children of the new relationship, or whether the costs of those children should be allowed in full in the absent parent's exempt income; secondly, to determine whether the amount of maintenance the absent
  190
  parent has been assessed to pay should in fact be reduced, under the protected income provisions. Protected income is calculated for the whole family, so a stepchild's income is taken into account up to the amount included in that calculation for his or her personal needs.

  Where the parent with care can afford to contribute to the upkeep of a child of the previous relationship, the absent parent's maintenance payments may be reduced. Since parents with care do not make payments, no protected income calculation is necessary in respect of their new family. But a partner's income is taken into account where he or she can contribute to the upkeep of children of the new relationship.

  Benefits Agency Applications
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases there were of applicants to the Benefits Agency seeking help with funeral bills in Scotland in 1993; and of these how many were refused on the grounds that the applicant already had repayments to make for a social fund loan or loans.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Maria Fyfe, dated 26 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about requests for help with funeral bills in Scotland in 1993.
  I should explain that help with funeral bills can be provided from the Social Fund (SF) in the form of a Funeral Payment (FP). Applications for SF FPs are recorded when a decision (an award or refusal) is made. The number of decisions made in Scotland for the financial year 1993–94 was 11,395.
  With regard to the number of FP claims refused on the grounds that the customer was already repaying a SF loan, I should point out that the SF scheme is made up of two distinct and separate parts. The regulated part of the Fund is made up of Funeral Payments, Maternity Payments and Cold Weather Payments. The discretionary part of the Fund comprises Community Care Grants, Budgeting Loans and Crisis Loans. The qualifying conditions for the regulated SF are quite specific. Repayment of a loan from the discretionary part of the SF does not affect an application for a regulated payment. SF FPs are only recovered if there are sufficient funds in the deceased's estate. They are not recoverable from the person to whom they are awarded. Therefore, no FP claims were refused because the applicant was repaying a SF loan.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of lone parents in Scotland were living on income support each year since 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Scotland

  Year

  Lone parents on benefits

  All lone parents

  Percentage %

  1979

  34,000

  —

  —

  1980

  35,000

  —

  —

  1981

  40,000

  93,000

  43

  1982

  47,000

  —

  —

  1983

  53,000

  —

  —

  1984

  52,000

  —

  —

  191

  Year

  Lone parents on benefit

  All lone parents

  Percentage %

  1986

  67,000

  —

  —

  1987

  76,000

  —

  —

  1988

  81,000

  —

  —

  1989

  88,000

  —

  —

  1990

  94,000

  —

  —

  1991

  102,000

  132,000

  77

  1992

  106,000

  —

  —

  1993

  106,000

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Sources: Supplementary Benefit Statistics Annual Enquiries 1979–1987; Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries 1988–1992; Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1993. Census 1981 and 1991, General Register Office for Scotland.

  2. The answer has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Supplementary benefit data is not available for 1985.

  4. Information on the number of lone parents living in Scotland is only available for census years.

  5. 1981 census figures include unmarried parents living with children.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland have been refused income support.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested in respect of all claims from people aged 16 and 17 is not available. However, the success rate for those 16 and 17-year-olds who claimed under the severe hardship provision in Scotland was 82 per cent. in March 1994.

  State Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each of the member states of the European Union, the level of state retirement pensions at the most recent available dates in terms of(a) each country's currency, (b) ecus, (c) percentage of each country's average earnings and (d) in annual terms as a percentage of each country's gross domestic product per capita; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Comparable figures on the level of state retirement pensions are not available in terms of national currency or ecus, or as a percentage of average earnings, for all European Union countries. This is because most have wholly earnings-related pension schemes, unlike the United Kingdom. In addition, information is not available on each member state's average level of earnings.

  Information on pensions in the EU can be found in "MISSOC Social Protection", a copy of which is in the Library. In the United Kingdom information is published about levels of earnings from data collected in the New Earnings Survey; few countries have comparable surveys.

  Child Benefit

  Method of payment

  Period

  Number of new claims

  Automated credit transfer

  Four-weekly order-book

  Weekly order book

  Quarter ending wc 30 March 1993

  106,424

  36,991

  34,882

  34,551

  Quarter ending wc 30 June 1993

  98,371

  34,449

  32,070

  31,852

  Quarter ending wc 28 September 1993

  105,943

  37,190

  33,996

  34,757

  Quarter ending wc 30 December 1993

  99,755

  36,588

  31,520

  31,647

  Quarter ending wc 29 March 1994

  107,718

  40,946

  32,884

  33,888

  192
  Information for (d) is not available in the form requested. The following Eurostat publications contain information on expenditure on the elderly in EU countries and copies are held in the Library:
  Digest of Statistics on Social Protection in Europe, Volume 1: Old Age.
  Social Protection Expenditure and Receipts 1980–1991.

  Claimants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much information is readily available to new claimants on what benefits they are entitled to and the processes involved; and what estimates are available as to how many people do not claim everything to which they are entitled.

  Mr. Burt
  This Department produces more than 130 leaflets, many in a number of languages, which provide information on the full range of social security benefits and details of how to claim. Leaflets are readily available at all Benefits Agency offices and post offices and are also supplied to many intermediary organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux. Information is also available in other formats such as Braille, audio cassette and video.

  In addition, the Benefits Agency undertakes a wide range of initiatives to increase awareness of entitlement such as exhibitions, liaison with customers and their representatives and the operation of multilingual freelines.

  The numbers taking up their entitlement are not uniform among benefits available. For most of the main contributory benefits such as widows' benefit, retirement pension, unemployment benefit and for child benefit, take-up is thought to be close to 100 per cent. The latest estimates for the take-up of income related benefits indicate that around £9 of every £10 of available benefit is claimed by more than four out of every five eligible to claim. These estimates are for 1991 and were published on 25 March 1994 in "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take-up in 1990 and 1991", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claimants of child benefit there were in each quarter of 1993 and the first quarter of 1994; and which payment methods were taken up by such claimants.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Overpayments
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the total losses recorded in the 1992–93 accounts of Government-administered social security
  193
  benefits and other payments in class XIV, vote 1, as a result of overpayments; and if he will publish a breakdown of overpayments for each category of benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The table details the cash losses due to irrecoverable overpayments of pension benefits, war pensions, disability benefits, industrial injury benefits, income support and family benefits as recorded in the class XIV, vote 1, 1992–93 appropriation account.

  Benefit

  Amount £

  Attendance allowance

  896,498

  Invalid care allowance

  795,139

  Mobility allowance

  101,153

  Disability living allowance

  68,053

  Industrial injury benefits

  1,371

  Severe disablement allowance

  153

  War pensions

  239,019

  Child benefit

  2,791,928

  Family credit

  277,526

  Income support

  29,275,520

  Total

  34,446,360

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the Independent Living Fund (1993) annual budget was spent at the end of its first year; what plans he has in regard to the exclusion of people who are terminally ill from help from the fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the Independent Living Fund (1993) that the fund spent £841,858 in its first year of operation. The fund estimates that the full year costs of the case load taken on in its first year will be around £6.28 million in this financial year, assuming current trends.

  People who are terminally ill are free to apply to the fund. The trustees consider all applications on their individual merits.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women aged 60 years or more have had the suspension of invalidity benefit lifted following Social Security Commissioner Skinner's decision in the case of Mrs. Rose Graham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest available information relates to 31 August 1993, at which time the suspension of increases of benefit awarded as a result of the commissioner's decision had been lifted in 773 cases.Source: 100 per cent. clerical count by Benefits Agency offices in Great Britain.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools (Advertising Campaign)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's response to the Advertising Standards Authority investigation into the recent grant-maintained school status advertising campaign.
  194
  Mr. Robin Squire
  To make the Department's response public at this time could undermine the role of the ASA, which is investigating the complaints made under conditions of confidentiality. The outcome of the ASA's investigations will be published in the authority's monthly reports, copies of which are available free of charge from the ASA.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the annual expenditure in 1992–93 and 1993–94 on discretionary awards by each local authority at current prices and at 1983–84 prices.

  Mr. Bosweell
  Returns made to the Department by local authorities about their expenditure on discretionary awards for the academic year 1992–93 will not be available for publication until later this summer. Data for 1993–94 have not yet been collected.

  Home Repossessions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children changed schools last year as a result of home repossessions.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Students (Maternity Leave)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provision is made for the support of students who have to break their studies for reasons of maternity.

  Mr. Boswell
  Where a student holds a mandatory award and is absent from his or her course, local education authorities have discretion to make payments up to the amount that would otherwise have been due under the Mandatory Awards Regulations. For students in receipt of discretionary awards, it is up to LEAs to decide whether to continue paying the award, in the light of their own policies.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to exempt any grant-maintained schools from the national curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to exempt any self-governing schools from the national curriculum, except in so far as he is considering a number of applications from state schools, including some self-governing schools, to teach an alternative to the present statutory programme for national curriculum technology.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the incidence of cholera in Somalia; and what action is planned by Britain and the international community to counteract outbreaks.
  195
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  At 12 April, 7,477 cases, including 285 deaths, had been reported, mostly in the north-eastern, central and southern zones. Somali professionals, non-governmental organisations and United Nations agencies have established a cholera task force to co-ordinate the response to the recent outbreak. Britain has provided more than £297,000 since March in support of NGO cholera prevention and treatment work in Mogadishu, Kismayo, Afgoy and Hargeisa.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the terms of the draft humanitarian statement worked out under IGADD—the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development—auspices in Nairobi from 6 to 12 April for transporting relief supplies and humanitarian assistance in Sudan; and whether the terms of the statement were agreeable to the Government of Sudan and both SPLA factions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No agreement on access was reached at the IGADD talks from 6 to 12 April. The terms of the draft under consideration at the talks were not made public.

  Nigeria and Cameroon
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of Nigeria and Cameroon about the future of United Kingdom aid to the Bakassi peninsula.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no United Kingdom aid projects in the Bakassi peninsula.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom will ratify article 13 of the European convention on human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom ratified the European convention on human rights, including article 13, on 8 March 1951.

  Giant Tortoises, Galapagos Islands
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make immediate resources available to assist in the rescue of the giant tortoises currently threatened by fires on Isabela Island in the Galapagos Islands.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are most concerned about the fire on Isabela Island in the Galapagos archipelago and the threat that it poses to giant tortoises and other unique species of flora and fauna. We have donated $50,000 to the immediate relief effort being co-ordinated by the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs. Our ambassador is closely monitoring the situation and we have informed the Ecuadorean authorities that we are ready to consider any request to assist with the evacuation of the tortoises, if necessary.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the workings of the Council of Europe social charter and its mechanism for enforcement; and what proposals the United Kingdom Government have to reform those mechanisms.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  At the start of 1991, the Council of Europe established a committee charged with making proposals on updating the European social charter and improving its operation. The United Kingdom has played a full and constructive part in the deliberations of that committee, which is due to complete its work at the end of this year.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases from the United Kingdom are currently being considered within the machinery of the Council of Europe social charter.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The governmental committee of the European social charter is currently considering the reports of both the committee of experts and the United Kingdom Government on 11 possible cases.

  Azerbaijan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the outcome of his investigations into the reports of the supply of arms and mercenaries from British sources in support of Azerbaijan in the conflict over Nagorno-Kharabakh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) on 13 April at column 206. I have nothing further to add.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contact he has had with the German Government regarding their policy on the export of anti-personnel land mines.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had no personal contact with the German Government on this matter. However, Foreign Office officials are in frequent contact with their counterparts in all European Union partner countries, and the subject was most recently discussed at a common foreign and security policy working group meeting on 7 April.

  Nigeria and Cameroon
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to safeguard the security of British nationals living on the Nigeria-Cameroon border.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Contact with British nationals in both Nigeria and Cameroon is maintained through the warden system. We are not aware of any concerns about their safety in the disputed border area.
  197
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with his French counterpart the question of trade with Cameroon.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no plans to do so.

  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to reduce armed conflict on the border between Cameroon and Nigeria.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have urged both sides to seek a peaceful, negotiated, mutually acceptable solution to the dispute, and have made available to both Governments historical documents relating to the area.

  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for Her Majesty's Government policy of the boundary dispute between the Governments of Nigeria and Cameroon.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is a matter of great concern that there should be a dispute between two countries with which we maintain close relations. We have urged both sides to seek a peaceful solution.

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the present level of nursing staff in the national health service with particular reference to the west midlands.

  Mr. Sackville
  Local managers have responsibility for staffing levels and determine, in consultation with professional service heads, the type and number of staff required to deliver nursing care to patients and clients. These arrangements apply throughout England.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had from organisations or members of the public regarding the recruitment of nurses from the west midlands.

  Mr. Sackville
  During the last six months we have received four such representations from members of the public.

  Radiotherapy Equipment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to improve the quality of radiotherapy equipment.

  Mr. Sackville
  The performance of radiotherapy equipment should be defined, as part of the specification, when the equipment is purchased from the manufacturers. It is the user's responsibility to ensure that performance is maintained to meet current treatment requirements.

  All medical devices should be purchased from manufacturers who manufacture to a recognised quality assurance system. Such QA systems include those which comply with BS 5750, ISO 9000, BS EN 29000. The Department's medical devices directorate operates a manufacturers registration scheme to register manufacturers whose QA systems have been audited by MDD.
  198
  The Department recommends that all medical devices are managed according to the principles of the document Health Equipment Information 98 "Management of medical equipment and devices", November 1990. This gives advice on, selection, acceptance testing, training, servicing and replacement, amongst other things. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  From 1 January 1995, the medical devices directive takes effect for new medical devices placed on the market. All medical devices covered by the directive will need to carry a CE mark to denote compliance with the essential requirements as defined in the directive by 1997.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what levels of alcohol intake have been recommended as a maximum by her Department; what recent research her Department has commissioned as to healthy levels of alcohol intake; and what plans she has to issue revised guidelines.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government do not recommend maximum levels of alcohol intake. Our advice to people who wish to drink alcohol is that drinking less than 21 units per week by men or 14 units per week by women is unlikely to damage health. Drinkers are also advised that consuming more than 50 units of alcohol a week for men or 35 for women is definitely dangerous to health. The Department have not commissioned any recent research into healthy levels of alcohol intake, but the results of research nationally and internationally are monitored by our medical and scientific staff. We have no plans at present to change our advice to drinkers. In the light of recent research findings, however, the Government have decided to consider whether the sensible drinking message needs any modification or qualification. Details of action proposed will be announced shortly.

  Programme Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish an updated table of hospital and community health service programme expenditure by age group on the lines of that for 1986–87 supplied to the Social Services Select Committee in 1988 and printed as House of Commons Paper No. 548 of Session 1987–88 but using the reported changes of 1989–90 in cash terms and cash adjusted for NHS pay and prices for each year since 1989–90.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  House of Commons Paper No. 548 of Session 1987–88 did not include a table giving hospital and community health service programme expenditure by age group.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what pension entitlements and other benefits, including subsistence and travelling allowances, are paid to non-executive directors of national health service trusts; and when these will be revised.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Non-executive directors of national health service trusts receive annual remuneration of £5,000. In addition, they receive subsistence and travelling expenses at the rates set out in appendix 4 of "Financial
  199
  Matters", May 1993, copies of which are available in the Library. These rates are under review. Non-executive directors are not entitled to receive any additional benefits.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what salaries, remuneration, pensions entitlement and other benefits, including subsistence and travelling allowances, are payable to(a) non-executive members and (b) chairs of district and regional health authorities; and when these will be revised.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The annual rate of remuneration payable to non-executive members of regional and district health authorities and family health services authorities is £5,000. The remuneration of the chairmen of regional and district health authorities and family health services authorities is calculated in accordance with the table:

  RHA, DHA, FHSA and trust chairmen: Remuneration rates per year

  £

  RHA chairmen

  20,925

  DHA chairmen

  Band 1

  19,285

  Band 2

  17,145

  Band 3

  15,125

  FHSA chairmen

  Band 1

  12,605

  Band 2

  11,720

  Band 3

  10,845

  Banding Criteria:

  Band

  DHA Chairmen

  DHA Revenue budget 1985–86

  Teaching

  £45 million or more

  1

  Non-teaching

  £60 million or more

  1

  Teaching

  Under £45 million

  2

  Non-teaching

  £30 million to £60 million

  2

  Non-teaching

  Under £30 million

  3

  FHSA Chairmen

  FHSA population Mid-1985

  Over 750,000

  1

  250,000–750,000

  2

  Under 250,000

  3

  The current rates of payment of subsistence and travelling allowances are set out in appendix 4 of "Financial Matters", January 1993, a copy of which is held in the library. The rates are currently under review. Chairmen and non-executive members are not entitled to receive any additional benefits.

  Medical Treatment (Definition)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the definition of medical treatment used for the purpose of deciding whether a patient should have a bed paid for fully by the NHS in a private nursing home.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is the responsibility of the national health service to provide long-term care for those who require it for reasons of ill health. It is for local health care purchasers to determine the level and type of services provided, including full-time care funded by the NHS in hospital or in an appropriate facility in the independent sector. In doing so, they will need to take account of the range of local circumstances, needs, resources and clinical practice.

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu NHS Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will publish the audit report for 1992–93 in respect of the Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu NHS trust;

  (2) if she will publish the 1992–93 audit report in respect of the Doncaster health care trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received no statutory audit reports on Doncaster healthcare national health service trust or on Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital NHS trust for 1992–93. However, auditors produce an annual management letter for each audit client which is not published. It is for the auditor to decide whether any matter requires a public report.

  Community Pharmacists
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is paid to a community pharmacist for each NHS prescription dispensed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Community pharmacists are paid a professional fee of £1.35 per prescription for the first 1,700 prescriptions they dispense each month and a fee of 94.5p per prescription for the remainder. They can also receive additional fees, for example if an item is dispensed urgently or extemporaneously.

  HIV Screening
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she or her Ministers have had with the Department of Employment regarding the circumstances in which an employer may seek to have employees screened for HIV and the need to ensure informed consent and counselling for any such test.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Employment has set out its policy regarding screening employees for HIV infection in its booklet "AIDS and the Workplace—A Guide for Employers", copies of which are available in the Library. The policy is a long-standing one which reflects interdepartmental discussion.

  Medical Audits
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical audits have been carried out of the quality of treatment being received by(a) patients of fund holding general practitioners practices and (b) patients of non-fundholding general practitioner practices; and what plans she has to commission further such studies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Our view is that audit priorities are best determined locally by individual general practitioner practices, in the light of local requirements. To assist this, we have made funds available through family health services authorities to enable all practices—including fundholding practices—to participate in medical audit.

  Amyl Nitrate
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received regarding amyl nitrate; and if she will now invite the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to initiate research on the effects of amyl nitrate on children and young people.
  201
  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has received a number of representations regarding amyl nitrate since the beginning of this year.

  We are aware of concerns about its use among children and young people and we are keeping the matter under review, including the need for any research.

  Medicines Policy
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy in respect of printing the retail price recommended by the manufacturer on all packs of prescription and over-the-counter medicines.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no plans to show the price of national health service prescription medicines on the label. The sale of over the counter medicines is governed by retail price maintenance and is a matter for the suppliers.

  Nurse Practitioner Training
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what resources have been devoted to the training of nurse practitioners in each of the last five years;

  (2) what was the number of nurse practitioners practising in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities commission education and training to meet demand forecasts for qualified nursing staff. Information on the resources devoted to the training of nurse practitioners and the number in post is not available centrally.

  Temazepam
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will indicate the level of intravenous abuse of Temazepam capsules.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available is contained in the drug misuse statistics for the six months to March 1993 published by the Department last month. This includes some information on drug misusers reporting benzodiazepine misuse, including injecting misuse, of which temazepam is one such drug. Copies of the drug misuse statistics are available in the Library.

  Pharmacists
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health (1) how much is paid by patients to the community pharmacist over and above the cost of the prescribed medicine for a private, non-NHS, prescription;

  (2) if her Department will consider laying down firm fees which pharmacists can charge for dispensing private prescriptions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance on the dispensing of private prescriptions is a matter for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Information on charges levied by community pharmacists for dispensing private prescriptions is not collected by the Department.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors are employed in each of London's regional health authorities; and how many were employed in each year since 1990–91.
  202
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Junior doctors in the London regional health authorities: 30 September 1990, 1991 and 1992

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Total

  7,240

  7,290

  7,270

  North West Thames

  2,030

  2,070

  1,840

  North East Thames

  2,170

  2,170

  2,270

  South East Thames

  1,800

  1,770

  1,840

  South West Thames

  1,240

  1,280

  1,320

  Source: Medical and Dental Manpower Census September 1992.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current NHS rules and practice enable the age of a patient to be taken into account by a general practitioner or a general practitioner practice when determining whether to accept a new patient on to their lists; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had from the Pensioners Liaison Forum North-west, in regard to equal access to health care for elderly people; what reply she is sending; what action she is taking; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a letter from the Pensioners Liaison Forum North-west on this subject. Our reply will reaffirm that it is the duty of the national health service to provide health services for all, regardless of age, on the basis of clinical need.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish guidelines for general practitioner fundholders in relation to taking patients off their lists; and what plans she has to investigate any fundholding GP practices which remove patients from their list on the basis of the patients' age.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None. The requirements for general practitioner fundholders are exactly the same as for other GPs in this respect.

  Paracetamol-Methionin Product
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to make a paracetamol-methionin product available on NHS prescription.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Luton and Dunstable Trust Hospital
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 163, whether her Department is conducting an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Mrs. Avril Dongworth, chief executive at Luton and Dunstable trust hospital.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to add to the patients charter rights for children damaged by vaccines.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  The Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979 provides a scheme of one off, lump sum payments where it can be shown on the balance of probability that damage has resulted from vaccination. Receipt of a payment does not prejudice the individual's right to pursue a private claim for damages through the courts.

  Sleeping Drugs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions are in place on advertising drugs available without prescription which are designed to aid sleep; what checks are carried out to ensure that addictive or potentially harmful drugs are not advertised for mass consumption; what health warnings should be given in such advertisements; in what ways regulations or guidelines on the advertisement of such drugs have been amended or relaxed within the past five years; what plans she has to introduce new legislation, statutory orders or guidelines to regulate the promotion of aids to sleep which are available without prescription; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Licensed medicines may be advertised only under the stringent controls of the Medicines Act 1968 and supporting regulations. These ensure that the advertising is in accordance with the product licence and is not misleading. Products which are available without prescription may be advertised to the public, in compliance with the Medicines (Labelling and Advertising to the Public) Regulations 1978. These regulations prohibit the advertising of a treatment for sleeplessness or insomnia, advertising for the relief of temporary sleeplessness is not prohibited.

  Medicines which we consider to be addictive or potentially harmful when used without medical supervision are only available on prescription and may not be advertised to the public. Proposed legislation to amend the 1978 regulations in order to implement Council directive 92/28/EEC is currently under consideration.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Hincliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if any new local authority established, following the review of local government, will be required by statute to establish a social services committee and to appoint a director of social services adequately qualified to perform the responsibilities of that position.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 requires all social services authorities to establish social services committees and appoint directors of social services. It also allows for these to be joint appointments or arrangements.

  The Act does not make any provision as regards the qualifications of directors of social services. That is a matter for individual authorities.

  Unregistered Residential Homes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the fees of residents in unregistered residential homes may be met from public funds.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities may purchase services from homes which are not required to register under the Registered Care Homes Act 1984, where that would be appropriate for the individual user concerned.

  Health Services, Leeds
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP practices participated in the fundholding initiative in the area covered by the Leeds family health services authority in 1993–94; and how many it is estimated will participate in 1994–95.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities manage the general practitioner fundholding scheme in their areas. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority for local details.

  Exercise Diver Mist
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many personnel from her Department were involved in Exercise Diver Mist; in what capacities they serve; and what was the cost to her Department of this involvement.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  District Ethical Committees
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility there is for general practitioners to seek permission from district ethical committees prior to embarking on research in primary care; and what is the composition of these committees.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Local research ethics committees should be consulted about any research proposal involving national health service patients or their records. This applies to proposals from general practitioners in the same way as it does to all others. Departmental guidance states that the committees should have eight to 12 members, including hospital medical staff, nurses, general practitioners, and two or more lay people. Copies of the guidance, "Local Research Ethics Committees", are available in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Benzene
  Sir Malcolm Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the findings of his Department's expert panel on air quality standards on the proportion of benzene in the air that is emitted from petrol engine exhausts; what action he will take to reduce this source of pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the first report of my Department's expert panel on air quality standards, a copy of which is in the Library, it was estimated that petrol engine exhausts contributed about 78 per cent. of the total 1991 national
  205
  emissions of benzene, the bulk of which were derived from non-catalyst equipped vehicles. Since December 1992, regulations have been in place which effectively require all new petrol-engined passenger cars to be fitted with catalytic convertors which reduce emissions of benzene by around 80 per cent.

  Further regulations are already in place which will also extend the catalyst requirement to new petrol-driven car-derived vans from 1 October 1994. A new European Parliament and Council Directive, 94/12/EC, OJ L100/42 of 19 April 1994 has been adopted which will require further reduction in emissions from new cars from 1 January 1997, necessitating additional improvements in catalyst efficiency which will also further reduce benzene emissions. An estimated 2.5 million cars are already fitted with these devices and, as the decade advances, there will be a natural progression towards an almost total catalyst equipped fleet by the year 2003.

  Vacant Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local authority housing is left vacant; and what proportion of this is marked either in need of renovation, repairs or unfit, or for rehousing for clearance purposes for each local authority in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I have today placed in the Library a table giving the available information reported on the 1993 housing investment programme—HIP1—returns by local authorities about their own dwellings which were vacant at 1 April 1993.

  Renovation Grants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how widely distributed is information given to promote the availability and procedures for obtaining mandatory renovation grants; and what estimate he has of the number of home owners or private landlords who are not aware of such availability or the procedures involved.

  Sir George Young
  Copies of a joint Department of the Environment and Welsh Office booklet, "House Renovation Grants", are freely available on application to the Department. Local authorities, home improvement agencies, citizens advice bureaux and similar bodies have the function of informing potential applicants about these grants.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to announce his decisions arising from the consultation on renovation grants; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans there are for the future development of mandatory home improvement grants;

  (3) what plans he has to move to the prioritisation of mandatory home improvement grants on to unfit privately rented properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  We will announce our conclusions on the future of private sector renewal programmes, following last year's consultation exercise, in due course.

  Local Government
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that any new local authorities established as a result of the current review of local government have a population of at least 200,000; and what estimate he has made as to the population base that will normally be required for the effective delivery of social services in more rural areas.

  Mr. Curry
  Our policy guidance to the Local Government Commission makes it clear that there need be no maximum or minimum size for the area or population covered by a unitary authority. As to the delivery of social services, population size does not determine effectiveness; we will look at each set of final recommendations by the commission on its merits. There are various ways in which local authorities can work together, if necessary, to provide specialist services.

  Housing Associations
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals following their access to local authority housing association tenancies consultation.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I gave on 12 and 21 April respectively to the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes),Official Report, columns 132 and 587.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the expected staff and administration costs and gross expenditure of the Leeds UDC and the Central Manchester UDC.

  Mr. Baldry
  The staff and administration costs and gross expenditure of these UDCs are contained in the Supply Estimates, 1994–95, class VII—Environment.

  Record Offices
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the record offices in England, (b) the number of people they employ, both paid and voluntary and (c) the number of people that use the service annually and the amount of revenue they receive.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]:Records of central Government are the responsibility of the Public Record Office, for which my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is responsible. Local authority record offices are listed in the table. Their staffing and operation are the responsibility of the individual local authorities, and information on employees and users is not held centrally. In their 1992–93 expenditure returns local authorities recorded income from achive services totalling around £3.5 million.

  Local Authority Record Offices in England

  County councils

  Cornwall

  Bedfordshire

  Cumbria

  Berkshire

  Derbyshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Durham

  Cambridgeshire

  Essex

  Cheshire

  Gloucestershire

  Cleveland

  Hampshire

  207

  Hereford and Worcester

  Oxfordshire

  Hertfordshire

  Shropshire

  Humberside

  Somerset

  Isle of Wight

  Staffordshire

  Kent

  Suffolk

  Lancashire

  Surrey

  Leicestershire

  Warwickshire

  Lincolnshire

  West Sussex

  Norfolk

  Wiltshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northumberland

  North Yorkshire

  London boroughs

  Haringey

  Barking and Dagenham

  Hounslow

  Barnet

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Bexley

  Kingston upon Thames

  Brent

  Southwark

  Bromley

  Tower Hamlets

  Corporation of London

  Waltham Forest

  Enfield

  Westminster

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Metropolitan district councils

  Tyne and Wear

  Bolton

  Wakefield

  Bury

  West Yorkshire archive

  Calderdale

  service (comprises Bradford,

  Coventry

  Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds

  Doncaster

  and Wakefield)

  Dudley

  Walsall

  Kirklees

  Wigan

  Liverpool

  Wirral

  Manchester

  Wolverhampton

  Rotherham

  St. Helens

  Salford

  Sheffield

  Stockport

  District councils

  Poole

  Bath

  Portsmouth

  Bristol

  Ribble Valley

  Canterbury

  Rochester upon Medway

  Chester

  Southampton

  Epsom and Ewell

  Thurrock

  Glanford

  York

  Hull

  North Wiltshire

  Peterborough

  Lead Water Pipes
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make grants available for replacement of lead water pipes to council house tenants.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]:Local housing authorities are issued with housing investment programme allocations, reflecting the relative need for housing capital expenditure in their areas. It is for each authority to decide how to use its housing capital resources.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those wetland areas that would be affected by a national management plan for the habitats of redshank and dunlin requested by the European Environment Commissioner.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 28 April 1994]:The great majority of inter-tidal mud flats in United Kingdom estuaries provide over-wintering habitat for redshank and dunlin and, as such, would be taken into account in measures to maintain a favourable conservation status for these species.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the planned spending on(a) inner city task forces, (b) regional enterprise grants, (c) safer cities, (d) section II grants, (e) ethnic minority grants, (f) ethnic minority business initiative, (g) grants for education support and training, (h) the programme development fund, (i) education business partnerships, (j) teacher placement schemes, (k) compacts, (l) the business start-up scheme, (m) local initiative fund schemes under the single regeneration budget for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Baldry
  Planned spending by my Department on each of these component items within the single regeneration budget in 1994–95 is as follows:

  £ million

  Inner city task forces

  16

  Regional enterprise grants

  9

  Safer cities

  4

  Section 11—urban

  60

  Ethnic minority grants

  6

  Ethnic minority business initiative

  1

  Grants for education support and training—GEST19

  5

  Programme development fund

  3

  Education business partnerships

  2

  Teacher placement service

  3

  Compacts

  6

  Business start-up scheme

  70

  Local initiative fund

  29

  For 1995–96 and beyond, English partnerships, housing action trusts and urban development corporations will, as now, receive specific allocations; and the rest of the Budget, including items (a) to (m), will be combined.

  On current plans, expenditure under the single regeneration budget will be worth some £1.3 billion in each of 1995–96 and 1996–97. The Department of the Environment's 1994 annual report provides more detailed information.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what changes he is proposing in relation to the urban priority areas; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what he projects the financial implications will be for the urban priority areas, arising from the single regeneration budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Regeneration programmes that have previously been targeted on the existing list of 57 urban priority areas now form part of the single regeneration budget. Since the budget is available throughout England, and proposals for funding will be locally driven, the existing list will not be used to direct budget resources and is being discontinued after 1994–95.

  In assessing proposals for funding from the budget which aim mainly at relieving deprivation, the Government offices for the regions will take account of detailed information about local conditions based on the 1991 index of local conditions and other data, including Employment Service information on labour market needs and gaps. The index will be published shortly.

  Existing commitments under the programmes which have been combined to form the budget will be honoured.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties purchased under the right-to-buy initiative have been repossessed; and what percentage of this figure comprises households who were unable to meet the service charges levied by their local authority.

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) of 29 March,Official Report, column 663, if he will list the local authorities involved in the 122 cases referred to; and if he will list the authorities in respect of which statutory follow up action was taken in relation to compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Secretary of State took statutory action in a total of 122 cases during 1993, serving 99 notices and giving 23 follow-up directions. The authorities to which the statutory action related, and the services concerned, are as follows:

  Statutory notices and directions relating to anti-competitive behaviour

  Authority and date

  Service concerned

  NOTICES IN RELATION TO ALLEGED ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOUR (LISTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

  Adur DC

  1 September 1993

  Other cleaning

  Arun DC

  7 May 1993

  Sport and leisure management

  Birmingham City Council

  22 April 1993

  Building maintenance

  Bradford MDC

  13 May 1993

  Building maintenance

  10 September 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Calderdale MBC

  23 December 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Chester City Council

  1 April 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Dudley MBC

  22 April 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Harrow LB

  20 October 1993

  Other catering

  Langbaurgh on Tees BC

  10 September 1993

  Street lighting

  21 December 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Leeds City Council

  10 September 1993

  Refuse collection

  Oldham MBC

  6 April 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Oswestry BC

  10 September 1993

  Sport and leisure management

  Portsmouth City Council

  30 June 1993

  Building maintenance

  South Somerset DC

  30 March 1993

  Sport and leisure management

  210

  Authority and date

  Service concerned

  South Tyneside MDC

  1 February 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Staffordshire Moorlands DC

  11 January 1993

  Sport and leisure management

  Stockton-on-Tees BC

  8 March 1993

  Other cleaning

  Warrington BC

  10 June 1993

  Ground maintenance

  DIRECTIONS RELATING TO ANTI-COMPETIVE BEHAVIOUR (LISTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

  Birmingham City Council

  13 July 1993

  Building maintenance

  8 October 19931

  Building maintenance

  Bolton MBC

  1 April 1993

  Building maintenance

  Bradford MDC

  14 December 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Chester City Council

  24 June 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Mole Valley DC

  24 March 19932

  Sport and leisure management

  Portsmouth City Council

  10 September 1993

  Building maintenance

  Sefton MBC

  23 April 19933

  Highways and sewers

  South Tyneside BC

  27 July 19934

  Ground maintenance

  Stockton-on-Tees BC

  19 February 19935

  Refuse collection

  27 July 1993

  Other cleaning

  Warrington BC

  14 December 1993

  Ground maintenance

  1 Variation to direction given on 13 July 1993.

  2 Variation to direction given on 15 July 1992.

  3 Variation to direction given on 2 December 1992.

  4 Variation to direction given on 23 December 1993.

  5 Replacement for direction given on 12 November 1992.

  Statutory notices and directions relating to financial failure

  Authority and date

  Service concerned

  NOTICES RELATING TO FINANCIAL FAILURE (LISTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

  Ashford BC

  1 September 1993

  Ground maintenance

  1 September 1993

  Refuse collection

  Barking and Dagenham LB

  1 September 1993

  Refuse collection

  Bedfordshire CC

  29 September 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Blackburn BC

  11 May 1993

  Building maintenance

  11 May 1993

  Construction <£50,000

  11 May 1993

  Construction >£50,000

  Bournemouth BC

  15 June 1993

  Highways and sewers

  211

  Authority and date

  Service concerned

  Brent LB

  11 May 1993

  Building maintenance

  11 May 1993

  Vehicle maintenance

  11 May 1993

  Ground maintenance

  11 May 1993

  Building cleaning

  11 May 1993

  Other catering

  Brighton BC

  1 September 1993

  Other catering

  Cambridgeshire CC

  15 June 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Camden LB

  25 March 1993

  Building maintenance

  11 May 1993

  Highways and sewers

  11 May 1993

  Construction >£50,000

  11 May 1993

  Construction <£50,000

  11 May 1993

  Vehicle maintenance

  Caterbury City Council

  7 April 1993

  Building maintenance

  7 April 1993

  Highways and sewers

  7 April 1993

  Other catering

  7 April 1993

  Sport and leisure management

  7 April 1993

  School and welfare catering

  Castle Point DC

  1 September 1993

  Ground maintenance

  1 September 19931

  Other cleaning

  Colchester BC

  1 September 1993

  Building maintenance

  Corby DC

  1 September 1993

  Vehicle maintenance

  Crewe and Nantwich BC

  15 June 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Daventry DC

  7 April 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Devon CC

  11 May 1993

  Construction >£50,000

  11 May 1993

  Other cleaning

  Epsom and Ewell BC

  15 June 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Exeter City Council

  15 June 1993

  Building maintenance

  Hammersmith and Fulham LB

  7 April 1993

  Building maintenance

  7 April 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Hampshire CC

  7 April 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Harborough DC

  15 June 1993

  Refuse collection

  Harrow LB

  1 September 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Hereford and Worcester CC

  7 April 1993

  Building maintenance

  Hillingdon LB

  1 September 1993

  Building cleaning

  1 September 1993

  School and welfare catering

  1 September 1993

  Other catering

  Kennet DC

  15 June 1993

  Building maintenance

  212

  Authority and date

  Service concerned

  Kerrier DC

  11 May 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Kingston upon Hull City Council

  1 September 1993

  Other catering

  Kingston upon Thames LB

  1 September 19931

  Other cleaning

  Leicestershire CC

  1 September 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Liverpool City Council

  7 April 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Luton BC

  11 May 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Manchester City Council

  15 June 1993

  Construction >£50,000

  Mansfield DC

  15 June 1993

  Construction >£50,000

  Northavon DC

  1 September 1993

  Vehicle maintenance

  Peterborough City Council

  15 June 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Plymouth City Council

  11 May 1993

  Highways and sewers

  11 May 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Reading BC

  15 June 1993

  Sport and leisure management

  Redditch BC

  15 June 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Richmond upon Thames LB

  1 September 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Rother DC

  11 May 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Sandwell DC

  7 April 1993

  Building maintenance

  Sheffield City Council

  11 May 1993

  Ground maintenance

  South Bedfordshire DC

  29 September 1993

  Refuse collection

  Southwark LB

  7 April 1993

  Highways and sewers

  7 April 1993

  Ground maintenance

  7 April 1993

  Refuse collection

  7 April 1993

  Vehicle maintenance

  St. Albans City Council

  15 June 1993

  Building maintenance

  Stevenage BC

  11 May 1993

  Highways and sewers

  Stoke on Trent DC

  25 January 1993

  Building maintenance

  7 April 1993

  Construction >£50,000

  7 April 1993

  Highways and sewers

  7 April 1993

  Other cleaning

  7 April 1993

  Refuse collection

  Tameside MBC

  15 June 1993

  Building maintenance

  213

  Authority and date

  Service concerned

  Tamworth BC

  15 June 1993

  Building maintenance

  Waltham Forest LB

  7 April 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Warwick DC

  15 June 1993

  Building maintenance

  DIRECTIONS RELATING TO FINANCIAL FAILURE (LISTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

  Bedfordshire CC

  9 December 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Camden LB

  3 August 1993

  Vehicle maintenance

  3 August 1993

  Building maintenance

  3 August 1993

  Single direction covering the following activities: Highways and sewers Construction <£50,000 Construction >£50,000

  Castle Point BC

  9 December 1993

  Ground maintenance

  Hammersmith and Fulham LB

  23 July 1993

  Highways and sewers

  23 July 1993

  Building maintenance

  Hillingdon LB

  9 December 1993

  Other catering

  Manchester City Council

  9 December 1993

  Construction >£50,000

  South Bedfordshire DC

  9 December 1993

  Refuse collection

  Waltham Forest LB

  23 July 1993

  Ground maintenance

  1 Revised 2 September.

  EC Waste Shipments Regulation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will lay before Parliament regulations to supplement the provisions of the EC Waste Shipments Regulation which applies from 6 May.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994, laid before Parliament on Monday 25 April, will come into force on 6 May when Council Regulation EEC No. 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community—the "Waste Shipments Regulation"—applies. The Waste Shipments Regulation implements the obligations of the Basel convention which, together with the EC, the United Kingdom ratified on 7 February and to which it will become a party on 8 May. The EC regulation is directly applicable, but additional domestic legislation is required to give full effect to some of its provisions. For the United Kingdom, this additional legislation is contained in the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994.

  The regulations designate waste regulations authorities in Great Britain and district councils in Northern Ireland as the competent authorities of dispatch and destination, for imports and exports to and from the United Kingdom, and designate the Secretary of State as competent authority for transit shipments, and as "correspondent" for the purposes of the EC regulation. Other provisions include conferring
  214
  powers on customs officers to assist competent authorities in carrying out their functions by detaining shipments where appropriate; and specifying offences and penalties relating to compliance with the regulation. The regulations also provide for the preparation of a waste management plan, in accordance with the waste framework directive.

  Public consultations were carried out in March on a draft of the regulations and of the accompanying guidance. The regulations have been modified to reflect the concerns and interests of industry, local authorities and the public in response to those consultations. The Government are satisfied that these regulations will enable the United Kingdom to fulfil its obligations under the Basel convention, and contribute significantly towards securing the environmentally sound management of waste movements to and from the United Kingdom.

  Public Housing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses have been built to replace houses with defective concrete in(a) Cornwall, (b) Devon, (c) Somerset and (d) Dorset; and how much public money has been made available by the Government for repairs and maintenance of public housing in these four counties since 1979.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 12 April 1994]: The Department collects information about total housebuilding by local authorities, but not about the reasons for it.

  Figures for housing revenue account subsidy for repair and maintenance by local authorities on their own dwelling stock are only available since 1990–91. The following levels of subsidy were given to authorities in the four counties:

  HRA subsidy paid for repairs and maintenance by local authorities:

  1990–91 to 1993–94: £ million

  Cornwall

  141·9

  Devon

  102·0

  Dorset

  47·7

  Somerset

  58·3

  1 Excluding subsidy paid to Carrick BC in 1990–91.

  The actual expenditure by local authorities on repair and maintenance will differ from the subsidy paid by the Government.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Aquarium, London
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what the Government's policy is towards the building of a major new aquarium in London.

  Mr. Sproat
  I would greatly welcome the establishment of a major new aquarium in London. This would be a valuable new educational and tourist attraction. While the responsibility, including the financing, for taking such a project forward would rest wholly with its promoter, I would be interested to hear from any group or individual who can help to establish such an aquarium. Any promoter may wish to consider an association with the natural history museum.

  English Heritage (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much was spent by English Heritage on properties and activities in North Yorkshire in 1993–94; and how much is budgeted for such activities in 1994–95.

  Mr. Brooke
  In 1993–94, English Heritage spent £4.3 million on its historic properties and other activities in North Yorkshire. The other activities relate to conservation grants, marketing, and research and professional services. Assuming a similar level of expenditure on grants, which are dependent on demand, a further £4.3 million is expected to be spent in 1994–95.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Reform
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the reform of local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend continues to receive a range of representations about the Government's proposals for local government reform in Scotland. Since January I have met 24 hon. Members who accompanied delegations.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the provisions of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill allowing Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee to become single-tier authorities again.

  Mr. Lang
  I have received a number of representations supporting the proposal to establish Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee as single-tier authorities. The proposal has been widely welcomed.

  Rural Community Hospitals
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what priority he attaches to rural community hospitals in Scotland as part of the care in the community initiative and the NHS reforms.

  Mr. Stewart
  Our main priority is to provide high quality health care which is easily accessible to local communities. We will continue to examine the role which rural community hospitals have to play in achieving this.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent in each of the past three years on upgrading trunk roads in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures for new construction and improvement of motorways and trunk roads in Scotland for 1991–92 was £175 million, for 1992–93 was £198 million and for 1993–94 was £196 million.

  "Setting Forth"
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the result of his consultation on the document, "Setting Forth"; and if he will make a statement.
  216
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We issued our response to the consultation on "Setting Forth" on 1 February 1993, following which a range of feasibility studies on aspects of the proposed road bridge across the Forth and associated road and rail links were put in hand. These studies are nearing completion and the results will be published as soon as possible.

  Forestry Policy
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce a decision on his future forestry policy.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) earlier this afternoon.

  Water Services
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the membership of the water authorities.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Membership of the new water authorities will include persons knowledgeable about the industry, and persons with proven business skills. We will also expect to see a significant number of local councillors taking up appointments. No individual members have yet been considered.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many water authorities he has visited in Scotland this year to discuss with them his proposals for removing water and sewerage services from local authority control.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has made no such visits. Discussion with local authorities has been prevented by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities campaign of non-co-operation.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the future of water services in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend last discussed water and sewerage with COSLA on 9 July 1993. Subsequent discussion has been prevented by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities boycott.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the new water board to be set up in Scotland has autonomy to sell off land and property without consultation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Local Government Etc. (Scotland) Bill provides for new water authorities to dispose of land and property as they see fit. They may not, however, dispose of land for a consideration less than the best expected value on the open market without the consent of the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last visited a local authority-run water treatment works.
  217
  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has not made an official visit to a water treatment works.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he intends to take to safeguard concessionary travel for pensioners following local government reorganisation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  After local government reform, the new councils will retain the discretionary powers currently available to regional and islands councils under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 which allows local authorities to establish a concessionary travel scheme for eligible categories of person. The Strathclyde passenger transport authority will also have the power to establish a scheme for its area.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairs of the health boards to discuss acute beds in hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State met health board chairmen on 25 February 1994.

  Health Provision, Glasgow
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the chairman of the Greater Glasgow health board to discuss health provision in the Glasgow area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State regularly meets representatives from all health boards to discuss health provision issues. There are no immediate plans for a further meeting at present.

  Businesses Support
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to support businesses.

  Mr. Stewart
  A wide range of measures are in place, and continue to be evolved, to support businesses in Scotland. These include support through central Government, local authorities, the Scottish enterprise bodies and others. Examples of recent initiatives include the Clydebank business creation centre, which I opened formally on 15 April, and the Scottish business shop network launched by my right hon. Friend on 18 April and involving a partnership between Scottish Enterprise and its local enterprise companies, local authorities, enterprise agencies and chambers of commerce.

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many doctors were employed in the NHS in Scotland in 1979; and how many currently.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number of doctors employed in the NHS hospital and community health services in Scotland, whole-time equivalent, was 5,613.3 in 1979 and 6,405.6 in 1993. In addition, the number of general medical practitioners, as a head count, was 3,190 in 1979 and 3,824 in 1993. The figures for 1993 are provisional.

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Licences
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Department of Transport to discuss the proposed increase in charges for heavy goods vehicle licences and their extension to Scottish islands.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has had no meetings with the Department of Transport to discuss changes to the heavy goods vehicle licensing regime.

  Local Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to redraw the boundaries of local enterprise companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to redraw the boundaries of local enterprise companies. Should he receive representations in favour of any adjustments once the Local Government Etc. (Scotland) Bill, which alters local authority boundaries, has received Royal Assent, he would of course consider these.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish tourist board to discuss tourism in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend regularly discusses tourism matters with the chairman of the Scottish tourist board.

  Cottage Hospitals
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the chairmen of the three Tayside health hospital trusts to discuss the future of cottage hospitals.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the chairmen to discuss the future of cottage hospitals.

  Mountain Climbers
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice the Scottish tourist board gives to mountain climbers about safety.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish tourist board's "Walk Scotland" brochure provides general advice on safety and is available on request to anyone wishing information on Scotland's hills and mountains. This advice complements that which is issued by the Scottish Mountain Safety Group and other such organisations.

  NHS Pay Levels
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on pay levels for national health service staff in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the review bodies on the pay of doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, health visitors and the
  219
  professions allied to medicine in 1994–95. Negotiations on the pay of other staff on national terms and conditions are in progress in the Whitley councils. NHS trusts are free to negotiate locally on the pay of staff on trust terms and conditions of service.

  Health Board Budgets
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the health board chairmen to discuss their budgets.

  Mr. Stewart
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State meets health board chairmen regularly to discuss a wide range of strategic matters affecting the management of the NHS in Scotland, many of which have implications for budgets. The next meeting will take place on 24 June 1994.

  Scottish Economy
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss employment and the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and I have frequent contacts with the STUC on matters concerning the Scottish economy. We look forward to a continuing exchange of views.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abattoirs are currently operating in Scotland; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There are 51 licensed red meat abattoirs currently operating in Scotland, 19 of which received assistance totalling £410,256 over the past 12 months from Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

  Travel Concessions
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the groups of two or more local authorities which are jointly operating travel concession schemes under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  From the information we have available, there are no joint concessionary travel schemes currently operating in Scotland.

  Further Education
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to publish his report on the discharge of his duties for further education in Scotland as required under section 1 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to say that the report entitled "Further Education in Scotland 1993: Report by the Secretary of State for Scotland" has been published today and has been laid before each House of Parliament. Copies are available in the Library of the House.
  220
  On 1 April 1993, 43 further education colleges transferred from education authority management and funding to incorporated status, grant-aided by the Scottish Office. Preparations for incorporation were undertaken vigorously and enthusiastically and the transition went smoothly. A great deal of credit for this goes to college boards of management and staff.

  The report shows that the first year of incorporation has been a successful one for the colleges and I look forward to working in partnership with them in the future.

  Monklands District Council
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had on the dealings of Monklands district council with Lowlands Building Services (Scotland) Ltd., now in liquidation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A copy of a letter sent to the hon. Member on 14 April 1994 by a shareholder of the company has been brought to my attention. I have asked my officials to look into the matter. I shall write to my hon. Friend in due course.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the location of land and estates owned by his Department for which he has granted permission for fox hunts; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 21 Apri11994]: The Forestry Commission has issued a permit for fox hunting to take place on land at Clatto, Pitmedden and Weddersbie in Fife region and Torloisk in Tayside region. Fox hunts also occasionally use commission land at Carskeoch in Strathclyde region; at Craik, Newcastleton, Priesthaugh, and Wauchope in the Borders region; and at Cullendoch, Murrayton and Tinnisburn in the Dumfries and Galloway region.

  Glanders and Farcy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of cases of glanders and farcy in each year since 1985.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: There have been no recorded cases of glanders or farcy in Scotland over this period.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Estate
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the relationship between the remit and responsibilities of the House of Commons Commission and of the domestic committees in respect of the provisions of services and facilities on the parliamentary estate.

  Mr. Beith
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 25 May 1993 at column 486.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give full details of all past and current collaborative research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Key
  I have placed in the Library a list of collaborative research projects undertaken by TRL since 1 April 1991. Information in this form for prior years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list and give full details of all assets, including intellectual property rights, currently owned by the Transport Research Laboratory.

  Mr. Key
  As the information requested by the hon. Member relates to operational matters of the Transport Research Laboratory I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Wootton to Ms Joan Walley, dated 25 April 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic has asked me to reply to your Question about the assets of the Transport Research Laboratory.
  I enclose a copy of the TRL Asset Register which lists all assets valued at more than £5,000 and a further list of the licences issued since April 1991 for the use of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) held by TRL.
  Under the terms of Framework Document TRL holds the IPR on behalf of the Secretary of State on research carried out for DOT and is responsible for exploitation of the IPR. When TRL contracts for work from other bodies, the ownership of the IPR is a matter of agreement between the parties.

  London Heliport
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the members of the London heliport working group, indicating the date they joined the group and the organisation they represent.

  Mr. Norris
  The London heliport study was set up on 3 February 1992 and the working group members are as follows:

  Department of Transport

  H. B. Wenban-Smith (Chairman)—March 1993

  Ms A. Monro—November 1992

  M. C. Mann—February 1992

  M. Wright—January 1993

  A. Thorning—February 1993

  M. Jackson—January 1993

  T. J. Wellburn—March 1993

  A. G. Jefreys—August 1993

  Department of the Environment

  R. Dickens—February 1992

  Department of Trade and Industry

  J. Daniels—March 1993

  P. Novak—February 1992

  Civil Aviation Authority

  T. Bass—February 1992

  S. Abrahams—February 1992

  British Helicopter Advisory Board

  Lord Glenarthur—February 1992

  J. P. W. Friedberger CB, CBE—May 1992

  222

  G. R. J. Holder—February 1992

  London Planning Advisory Committee

  K. Gardner—February 1992

  D. Dash—February 1992

  Westland London Heliport

  B. P. Cater—February 1992

  British Merchant Fleet
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new measures he now proposes to assist the British merchant fleet.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Lady to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 21 April at columns 1077–78.

  Glasgow Airport
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce measures to regulate or reduce the level of aircraft under the flight path of Glasgow airport, specifically in relation to Paisley, Johnstone and Elderslie; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  None. Responsibility for noise mitigation measures lies with the airport's anagers.

  Overflying
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which western European capitals airlines are permitted to overfly in the normal course of commercial aviation.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: Airlines from all states which are signatories to the 1944 Chicago convention and the 1944 international air services transit agreement or which otherwise possess bilaterally agreed overflying rights, are normally permitted to fly over western European capital cities. Such overflights will be subject to the air traffic control provisions of each state.

  Buses, London
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of(a) London Transport buses and (b) London Transport bus routes are crew operated in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the following table shows the percentage of total miles operated by crewed buses on London Transport bus routes since 1979.

  Percentage of miles operated by crewed buses

  Year

  Per cent.

  1979

  56

  1980

  55

  1981

  52

  1982

  52

  1983

  48

  1984

  46

  1985

  45

  1986

  33

  1987

  25

  1988

  15

  1989

  11

  1990

  8

  223

  Year

  Per cent.

  1991

  10

  1992

  7

  1993

  7

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) number and (b) percentage of bus routes operated by London Transport have had the length of their route (i) shortened and (ii) extended since 1979; and what was the average length of a bus route, in miles, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Railtrack Colours
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those stations where signs have been repainted or renewed in the colours of Railtrack; and what was the cost.

  Mr. Freeman
  Signs have been renewed at the following stations:

  London: Victoria

  Liverpool Street

  Euston

  Waterloo

  King's Cross

  Charing Cross

  Paddington

  London Bridge

  Glasgow Central

  Edinburgh

  Leeds

  Birmingham New Street

  Manchester Piccadilly

  The total cost amounted to £87,921·23.

  Travel Concessions
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the groups of two or more local authorities which are jointly operating travel concession schemes under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested for England is as follows. Data are based on a survey carried out by the Department of Transport in March 1992.

  (a) London

  A joint scheme is operated by all the London boroughs.

  (b) Metropolitan areas

  No joint schemes as such. The six passenger transport authorities—Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire—each operate schemes across the whole of their area.

  (c) Shire areas

  The following county councils each operate a scheme jointly with all their district/borough councils
  Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Devon, East Sussex, Essex, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Isle of Wight, Kent, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire and Suffolk.ln addition, Bedfordshire, Leicestershire and

  Surrey
  county councils each operate country-wide schemes, but with little direct involvement of their district councils.

  The following councils operate joint schemes:
  Bucks County Council and Milton Keynes Borough council.
  Aylesbury Vale, South Bucks and Wycombe District councils.
  224
  Durham County Council jointly with Easington, Chesterle-Street, Derwentside, Durham city, and Sedgefield District councils.
  The seven district councils in Norfolk.
  South Oxfordshire, West Oxfordshire and the Vale of the White Horse district councils.
  Newcastle under Lyme borough council and Stoke on Trent city council.
  Six of the seven—not Crawley—district councils in West Sussex.

  In addition:
  Avon county council operates a scheme for blind people in Bristol and Bath.
  Cleveland county council provides support towards some of its district council schemes.

  Hazardous Cargoes
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to introduce a system of mandatory reporting and monitoring for ships with hazardous cargoes in the seas around the United Kingdom coast similar to the system introduced by France and Italy in the straits of Bonifacio.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: The International Maritime Organisation approved in November 1993 a number of routing and reporting measures around the United Kingdom coast which are similar to those introduced for the strait of Bonifacio.

  Shipping Industry
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in the plans he announced on 15 December to assist the British shipping industry; and what plans he has(a) to publish the results of his consultation on proposals to allow non-United Kingdom officers to serve on British ships and (b) to increase the financial help available to British junior officers studying for higher certificates of competency.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]: We have received a few letters about my right hon. Friend's announcement of 15 December, mostly about the proposals to allow a greater use of non-United Kingdom officers on United Kingdom registered ships. Consultation on these proposals will be completed by the end of May. Individual comments will subsequently be available for inspection in the Department unless the respondent requests otherwise.

  My right hon. Friend's announcement on 15 December last explained that assistance will be available for a pilot scheme lasting three years for junior officers studying for a second certificate of competency. A total of £1.5 million is available for this scheme in the first year, 1994–95.

  Mr. Peter Gerosa
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the nature and cost of consultancy contracts awarded by his Department in which Mr. Peter Gerosa is involved.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]: Mr. Gerosa is not involved in any current consultancy contract. However, Mr. Gerosa was contracted by the Department from 10 January to 31 March 1994 to carry out a review of primary and secondary legislation on vehicle standards. He was paid a total of £5,240.47 for that consultancy work.

  Civil Aviation
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the procedure for members of the public to object to the Civil Aviation Authority about the re-issuing of an air tours operator's licence to a particular firm.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]: There is no formal procedure, but the hon. Member is free to write to the CAA at any time.

  M25
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sites of special scientific interest which are at risk as a result of Government plans to widen the M25.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 25 April 1994]: This question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. L. Haynes to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 26 April 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the effect of M25 widening on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
  The Government's plans for widening the M25 are not currently expected to require any land from SSSI except possibly for a small area which may be needed from the Ockham and Wisley Commons SSSI which surround Junction 10.

DEFENCE

  Rugby League
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in extending official recognition to rugby league as a sport in the armed forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am pleased to announce that rugby league is now on the same footing as other sports in the services. If a sport is to be able to compete for public and non-public funds it needs to have a properly constituted and recognised association. I am pleased to be able to say that both the Army and RAF Rugby League Associations have sought, and been granted, such recognition.

  Glen Fruin Road, Dumbarton
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made for Glen Fruin road, Dumbarton, when it is no longer required for use by his Department's construction traffic to the Clyde submarine base.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although my Department has agreed with the local planning authority and the landowner concerned to carry out work to remove the road and to reinstate the land when no longer required for construction traffic, it is now proposed with their agreement and that of the roads authority, to retain the road and meet the costs of bringing it up to adoptable standards for use by the public. As the proposed expenditure for this work is less than the estimated reinstatement costs, parliamentary approval to this new service has been sought in class I vote 3 of the 1994–95 main estimate. Pending that approval urgent expenditure estimated at £2,800,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingency fund.

  Military Survey Defence Agency
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has begun the review of the Military Survey Defence Agency.

  Mr. Hanley
  A review of the agency status of military survey is now under way. As a Defence Agency, the performance of Military Survey will be evaluated and military survey activities will be subjected to the prior options review set out in the 1993 "Next Steps Review" —Cm 2430.

  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in military survey and its work will be welcomed and should be sent by 31 May 1994 to military survey review team, Ministry of Defence, Room 257, Old War Office building, Whitehall, London SW1 2EU.

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key performance targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Operational Analysis Centre in 1994–95.

  Mr. Aitken
  The chief executive of the defence operational analysis centre at West Byfleet is responsible for providing the Ministry of Defence with advice on formulation of defence policy, military operational capability and future equipment requirements; this advice being derived from operational analysis studies and field trials. He has been set the following challenging key performance targets for 1994–95.

  Service to customers

  a. To complete 90 per cent. of the planned studies for customers within agreed timescales, and to seek progressive improvements in future years.

  b. To complete 85 per cent. of the planned sites for customers within planned cost, and to seek progressive improvements in future years.

  c. To complete 80 per cent. of studies within agreed time and cost.

  d. To subject 100 per cent. of new major studies to a formal quality process, which will require peer review and measures of customer satisfaction, and to conduct a trial of a "total quality target" for studies for implementation in future years.

  e. To respond to 90 per cent. of requests from customers for unplanned urgent advice within timescales negotiated at the outset, and to seek progressive improvements in future years.

  Management systems
  f. To implement a management information system linked to the full cost accounting system introduced last year and publish auditable accruals based accounts.

  Efficiency
  g. In 1994–95, to increase overall efficiency by 3 per cent. This includes a programme of market testing.

  Royal Naval Stores Depot, Eaglescliffe
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent in the last five years on refurbishing the computer room at RNSD Eaglescliffe.

  Mr. Hanley
  The air conditioning system in the computer building was replaced in 1993 at a cost of £251,000. Other maintenance carried out during the last five years has been of a routine and minor nature and the costs are not separately identifiable from the overall maintenance costs of the depot.
  227
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much is being spent on the construction of a new gatehouse at RNSD Eaglescliffe.

  Mr. Hanley
  A new gatehouse is being constructed at a cost of some £262,000, to replace the old police gatehouse which has been declared structurally unsound.

  South Africa (Defence Force)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role his military representatives are going to play in the integration of the new national defence force in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Transitional Executive in South Africa has made a formal request to the United Kingdom to provide a military team to assist with the integration of the new national defence force, which will be formed from all the existing forces in South Africa after the elections. Urgent consideration is being given to this request.

  Mozambique Army
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with his Department's involvement in training for the new unified Mozambican army; and if he will make a statement on any future involvement.

  Mr. Hanley
  In January this year the United Kingdom deployed a short-term training team to Mozambique to follow up earlier training of instructors from the new unified Mozambican army, FAMD, undertaken at Nyanga, Zimbabwe. Assistance provided by the United Kingdom currently takes the form of monitoring and advising the instructors in the training of their own troops. The Mozambican authorities have suffered some delay in the preparation of training camps and the arrival in them of trainees. A second SITT has now taken over from the first, whose personnel have other commitments, and full training commenced on 25 April.

  United Kingdom imports of sheep

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994 (January)

  Whole world of which:

  119,217

  98,032

  234,487

  72,939

  3

  Republic of Ireland

  118,382

  96,666

  204,230

  72,935

  France

  527

  400

  261

  0

  Netherlands

  135

  90

  392

  4

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  69

  213

  59

  0

  Germany

  13

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Iceland

  58

  0

  0

  0

  0

  New Zealand

  21

  662

  0

  0

  0

  Canada

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Australia

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Nicaragua2

  0

  0

  730

  0

  0

  Iran

  0

  0

  340

  0

  0

  Japan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1 No INTRASTAT data available for January 1994.

  2 Sheep import data estimated on reported weight of animals concerned.

  Source:Her Majesty?s Customs and Excise.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of lamb and sheep is

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under which budget the Territorial Army's non-regular permanent staff are paid; and what is their cost.

  Mr. Hanley
  Territorial Army non-regular permanent staff are paid from three different budgets. They are(a) Commander In Chief United Kingdom Land Forces, CinC UKLF; (b) Assistant Chief of the General Staff, and (c) Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, VCDS. The total annual cost is some £27,000,000.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women were members of the Territorial Army in England and Wales at the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 31 March 1994, there were 47,046 male and 8,018 female members of the Territorial Army in England and Wales.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel are members of the Army's long-term reserve.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 1 March 1994, the membership of the Army's long-term reserve was 104,722.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep and Lamb
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) from which countries sheep have been imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 1990, and in the current year to date;

  (2) what has been the total number of sheep imported into the United Kingdom in each year from 1990 and in 1994 to date.

  Mr. Soames
  Final date for years 1990 to 1992 are shown in the table. Data on numbers of live animals imported during 1993 are provisional and subject to change.

  reared in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; what proportion of the total United Kingdom production is accounted for by each country; what tonnage of lamb and

  229
  sheep reared in each country is exported (a) live and (b) dead; and what proportion of total British lamb and sheep exports, live and dead, is accounted for by each.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]: The table provides estimates of the tonnage of lamb and sheep production for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in 1993, together with the proportion of the United Kingdom total.

  Both live and dead export figures are only available for the United Kingdom as a whole, and are not available separately for each country.

  United Kingdom home fed sheep and lamb production 19931 Estimate of breakdown by country

  '000 tonnes

  Proportion of United Kingdom per cent.

  England

  197

  52

  Wales

  79

  21

  Scotland

  73

  19

  Northern Ireland2

  31

  8

  United Kingdom

  380

  100

  1 Includes meat equivalent of live exports.

  2 Includes an estimate of unrecorded in live exports to Ireland.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether a new fisheries derogation will be required before January 2003 to avoid equal access by all EU countries to British waters.

  Mr. Jack
  The provision for member states to retain sovereignty or jurisdiction out to 12 miles from baselines is in article 6 of regulation 3760/92. The provision expires on 31 December 2002 unless new arrangements are put in place.

  Article 14 of the same regulation provides for the Commission to report on its implementation by 31 December 2001, and for the Council to take a decision by 31 December 2002 on any necessary adjustments, in particular with reference to the provisions which could follow the arrangements referred to in article 6.

  The importance of the exclusive zone to all member states was again recognsied in the recently concluded Norwegian accession negotiations when it was agreed that the special interests of coastal communities dependent on fishing in the member states would be paid special attention when reviewing the present regime in 2002.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what definition of ecological risk will be used by the European Commission when deciding whether to allow a further derogation on the 2.5 km drift net limit for the French fishing fleet.

  Mr. Jack
  Under EC Council Regulation 3094/86, as amended, the derogation for certain French vessels 1:o use drift nets of up to 5 km in length expired at the end of 1993. Any further derogation can only be proposed by the Commission, and adopted by the Council by qualified majority,"in the light of scientific evidence showing the absence of any ecological risk linked thereto".
  The United Kingdom will be pressing the Commission to state how this absence of risk can be demonstrated.
  230
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has put to the European Fisheries Commissioner on days at sea limitations.

  Mr. Jack
  None.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific steps he intends to take to protect salmon and seatrout in the Irish sea, the Irish box, and other waters adjacent to the United Kingdom when Portuguese and Spanish vessels are allowed to fish in these areas.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]: There is no need for any additional measures to protect salmon and sea trout stocks as a result of changed access arrangements for Portuguese and Spanish fishing vessels. Article 6 of EC Council Regulation 3094/86 already effectively prohibits fishing for salmon and sea trout in waters beyond 12 miles from member states' baselines, and Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels have no access rights within 12 miles of United Kingdom baselines.

  Epidemic Diseases in Livestock
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has to prevent increased epidemic disease in livestock; what warnings she has received from the British Veterinary Association of the threat of corridors of diseases from eastern Europe; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government consider the maintenance of this country's high animal health to be a matter of the utmost importance.

  Ministry veterinary officials maintain close links with the British Veterinary Association and are aware of the concerns in relation to the introduction of disease by animals imported into the Community from eastern Europe. We are taking a number of measures to help prevent the introduction and spread of disease by imported farm livestock and equine animals. These are set out in my reply to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on 1 December 1993, Official Report, column 590. Such measures are kept under constant review and the level of checks are intensified in the light of perceived disease risks.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial assistance she has given to the private sector to facilitate research into the development and use of bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to achieve equity on the application of milk quota controls in all European Union member states.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are always concerned to ensure that member states comply with their EC obligations. The Commission has direct responsibility for ensuring that the Community rules are observed. If there is
  231
  evidence that other member states are not applying milk quota controls, we are always ready to take the matter up with the Commission. Indeed, we have challenged the Commission's latest proposal to award additional quota to Italy, Spain and Greece.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 25 and 26 April; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This meeting of the Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, again discussed the Commission's proposals for farm support prices for 1994–95 and related measures. I made it clear that I continued to have a number of objections to the proposals, in particular to the suggested 1 per cent. cut in milk quotas. No decisions were reached and the Council will return to the subject at its May meeting.

  There was a brief discussion, initiated by the German Minister, on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The Agricultural Commissioner, Mr. Steichen, supported my view that current control measures fully safeguarded public health. The Commissioner and several member states also endorsed my insistence that any further measures must be consistent with scientific advice. He confirmed that it would be unacceptable for a member state to take unilateral measures which interfered with infra-Community trade.

  The Council adopted a proposal to continue assistance to transporters of Greek fruit and vegetables affected by the war in ex-Yugoslavia. Denmark voted against and France abstained.

WALES

  Local Government
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received prior to the publication of the White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future",(a) in favour of the exclusion of Llanelly from the then proposed Heads of the Valley unitary authority and (b) in favour of the inclusion of Llanelly in the proposed unitary authority of Powys.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Health Authority Appointments
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) who are the members currently appointed to the Health Promotion Authority for Wales;

  (2) who are the members currently appointed to national health service trusts;

  (3) who are the members currently appointed to the district health authorities;

  (4) who are the members currently appointed to the Welsh Health Common Service Authority;

  (5) who are the members currently appointed to the family health service authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is included in the list of public appointments in Wales, which is held in the Library of the House, and is regularly updated.

  EC Additionality Rule
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his office's interpretation of the European Commission's rule on additionality following the issuing of advice to local authorities that their permitted capital spending has been reduced because of receipts of European regional development fund grants during 1992–93.

  Mr. Redwood
  No such advice has been issued. The Government place no limit on total capital spending by local authorities. All European regional development fund capital grants to local authorities on expenditure since 1 April 1993 are accompanied, automatically and in full, by an equal amount of supplementary credit approval. This accords with the Government's agreement with the European Commission.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the representations he received prior to his White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future", and the dates he received them, in favour of the inclusion of Wick, St. Bride's Major and Ewenny in the proposed unitary authority of the Vale of Glamorgan;

  (2) if he will list the representations he received prior to his White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future", and the date he received them, in favour of the inclusion of Llanelly in the proposed unitary authority of Powys.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Voluntary Bodies (Government Funding)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the total amount of Government funding disbursed by each voluntary body for the latest available financial year in respect of each district council area in Wales and for Wales as a whole;

  (2) what was the total amount of Government funding disbursed by each voluntary body for the latest available financial year in respect of each county council area in Wales and for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies (Government Funding)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of Government funding received by each public body to which he makes appointments in respect of each district council area in Wales and for Wales as a whole.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The amount of Government funding received by executive non-departmental bodies, advisory bodies, tribunals and NHS bodies is shown in "Public Bodies 1993" which is available in the Library of the House.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for the future of the Forestry Commission in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Ministers are considering the report of the Forestry Review Group and will make an announcement in due course.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet representatives of council tenants in Drury and Buckley to discuss damp, rotten windows and the need for central heating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have no plans to do so. It is for the local authority to deal with repairs and improvements to its housing stock.

  Travel Concession Schemes
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the groups of two or more local authorities which are jointly operating travel concession schemes under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  South Glamorgan
  South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff city council.
  South Glamorgan county council and the Vale of Glamorgan borough council.

  Mid Glamorgan
  Mid Glamorgan county council and the borough councils of Cynon Valley, Merthyr Tydfil, Ogwr, Rhondda, Taff Ely and the district council of Rhymney Valley.

  West Glamorgan
  West Glamorgan county council, Swansea city council and the borough councils of Lliw Valley, Neath and Port Talbot.

  Dyfed
  Dyfed county council, the district councils of Ceredigion, Preseli Pembrokeshire, South Pembrokeshire and the borough councils of Llanelli and Dinefwr.

  Gwent
  Gwent county council and the borough councils of Monmouth Newport, Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen and Islwyn.

  Health Promotion Authority
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the budget for the Health Promotion Authority for Wales in 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  Subjecct to parliamentary approval in 1994–95, £3,573,000 will be made available to the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, which includes £325,000 for national health promotion projects and £5,000 to fund the authority's capital expenditure.

  The allocation will be conditional upon satisfactory completion of an annual performance review.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources he has given to each of the housing authorities in the county of Clywd, borough and district, to combat homelessness.
  234
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Supplementary credit approvals for specific homelessness schemes have been made available as follows:

  £

  1991–92

  Alyn and Deeside

  153,000

  Rhuddlan

  182,000

  1992–93

  Alyn and Deeside

  30,000

  Delyn

  155,000

  Rhuddlan

  30,000

  1993–94

  Wrexham Maelor

  300,000

  This does not include spending on homelessness from within the general provisions for these councils.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the transitional costs of local government reform in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 25 April,Official Report, column 49.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Executive Agencies
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about possible executive agency status for the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

  The Attorney-General
  I announced on 6 December 1993 that consideration will be given to whether the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Treasury Solicitor's Department should become executive agencies under the "next steps" initiative. Prior options studies are being undertaken to establish whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. I would welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 1 July 1994 to:

  Mr. S. Guy

  Crown Prosecution Service 50,

  Ludgate Hill

  Room 323

  London

  EC4M 7EX

  Mr. A. Hollis

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Queen Anne's Chambers

  28, Broadway

  London

  SW 1H 9JS

  Ms J. Rowe

  Serious Fraud Office

  10–16, Elm Street

  London

  WCI X OBJ

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

Performance-related Pay: Armed Forces
Lord Craig of Radleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for introducing performance-related pay for servicemen and women, and whether such a concept would be applied to all ranks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we have no such plans at present, although the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body are examining the concept.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the 1994 Senior Salaries Review Body report, the Government are quoted as saying that their view was that performance pay was inappropriate for the Armed Forces? Does not the Minister agree that the system of promotion is widely accepted and universally approved as a method of rewarding performance? Most importantly, do the Government accept that that process of promotion, which is founded on comprehensive annual reports on every individual by his most immediate superior, and a formal promotion board drawn from the individual's own service, is extremely fair and a key to the services' reputation for integrity and incorruptibility in such matters?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I associate the Government with the latter part of the noble and gallant Lord's remarks, with which I am sure all of your Lordships will also wish to be associated. I refer the noble and gallant Lord in particular to paragraph 40 of the recent report issued by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, with which I am sure the noble and gallant Lord is familiar, in which it is made plain that the pay review body would very much like to consider the concept. It recognises in paragraph 125 of the same document the difficulties attendant on systems of that kind. I suggest to the noble and gallant Lord that it would be wise if that independent and respected body —respected in particular by the armed services—were allowed to examine the concept and then report to the Government. In due course, we could then make our own judgment on its conclusions.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is it correct that the aim of the proposals is to recognise the past achievements and experience of those who cannot expect further promotion because steps are not available, such as warrant officers? In that case, would it not be sensible to give the proposal a description which is more accurate and easily understood?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that is certainly one approach which would have to be taken into account by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in its considerations. My noble friend will be aware also that a number of private sector firms have examined systems of varying kinds. Many of them have reached the conclusion that individual performance review is not preferable to team performance review and that team performance review may be more effective for the Armed Forces. I suspect that that may invite a greater degree of approval from the noble and gallant Lord than would the performance review of individuals.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that, while the Armed Forces capability is reducing substantially, it appears to lay people like myself that they have ever-increasing areas of responsibility because of what is taking place in various parts of the world today? Should not those men and women who are now taking on increasing responsibilities be rewarded more adequately than they are at present?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, whose interest in defence matters I welcome and recognise, has put his linger on the reason why the Armed Forces Pay Review Body welcomed the idea of looking at that concept. I am sure that the noble Lord will be as interested as I am in the results, because he clearly understands the motivation for such a step.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not at least arguable that performance related pay would be inconsistent with the general ethos to be attached to a uniformed and disciplined service?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that that is one view, and it is certainly a view which is held strongly in certain parts of all three armed services. Nevertheless, I ask my noble and learned friend to recognise that equally there are circumstances in which people of the same rank have different responsibilities and different jobs. If we are to retain the high quality people whom we already have the good fortune to have in the armed services, increasingly, we shall have to recognise that we must devolve greater levels of responsibility down to lower ranks, and that those greater levels of responsibility need to be recognised by higher rates of pay. That is one approach that we shall examine. I emphasise to my noble and learned friend that as yet we are entirely open-minded and unpersuaded either way.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that the motivation of servicemen is in many ways different from and better than that of civilians? Do I understand the noble Viscount to say that the idea of performance-related pay for servicemen has not come from the new, wholly civilian review set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Michael Belt? Will the Minister inform the House which senior military officers are participating in Mr. Bett's review, and at what level?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I must answer—I am sure to his satisfaction—with an unequivocal yes. As to the second part, I believe that both he and I have discussed the matter previously in your Lordships' House. I can repeat to him the fact that the views of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body will be of paramount importance, if only for the reason that its independence ensures that it enjoys the trust of servicemen and women themselves —a trust which we were in danger of losing back in the 1970s and which we must be very careful about losing again.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that we on these Benches very much resent what he just said about the trust of the Armed Forces in the 1970s? Will the noble Viscount very kindly take that point on board? Further, will he acknowledge that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has appointed so-called "independent consultants" and that the name of those consultants and the fee that they are to be paid to establish something which, to my mind, is a load of absolute rubbish, have not been disclosed by the Government; nor, indeed have their terms of reference been disclosed? Until the Government come a bit cleaner on the matter, we shall continue to take the very hostile view that we have.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am always distressed when the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I fall out over such matters, especially in view of the noble Lord's very considerable military experience, which certainly tops my own. However, I must tell the noble Lord that it is incontrovertible that there was a period in the not-too-distant past, before the Armed Forces Pay Review Body was set up, when the trust which, rightly, the Armed Forces should have in their pay arrangements was at risk of being lost. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has restored that trust. It is something which any government—especially this Government—lose at their peril.
It is only right that a body like the Armed Forces Pay Review Body should take the lead in reviewing terms and conditions of service. It will then be certain in the minds of servicemen and women that the results will be independent and certainly not influenced by political or other considerations.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, when the review body examines the whole concept of performance pay, will it take note of the experience in the private sector? To my certain knowledge, the whole concept of performance-related pay has been brought in as a buzz-word to hide a certain amount of avariciousness. It is extremely difficult to try to come to the right decisions with performance pay reviews; indeed, I have experience of the latter in three areas. It is most important that the point made by the Minister as regards the analysis of the team should be taken into account. Can the Minister say whether there is a chance that the House could actually look at whatever system might be proposed before a decision is taken?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, who, I know, has
662
considerable experience in the matter. I am the first to acknowledge that the experience in the private sector of a number of companies—mostly very substantial companies, both British and European—has been, at best, patchy. It is for that reason that I tried to emphasise to the House this afternoon that our views are entirely open on the matter. I should certainly very much like to give your Lordships an opportunity to discuss the concept a little later when the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has had a chance to report.
Noble Lords: Next Question !
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I believe that the House would now like to move on to the next Question.

National Nature Reserves: Management
2.49 p.m.
Baroness Nicolasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to review the ownership and management of national nature reserves in England, Scotland and Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the Government have no plans for such a review.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very positive, if short, Answer. Will the Minister accept that behind my Question is the anxiety in some circles that the privatisation plans of the 1980s were to be revived? There will be considerable relief that that is not so. Can the Minister confirm that, as the country agencies use some of those reserves for land management exercises and because they are so important to wildlife, the day-to-day management will stay in the hands of government agencies?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can certainly say to the noble Baroness that we have never advocated such a policy of selling off NNRs but we have asked the agencies to consider whether some management functions could be contracted out. The noble Baroness is quite right and she is the first to appreciate that the national nature reserves are the jewel in the crown of nature conservation in this country. She is also quite right in saying that they have other important secondary values such as for demonstration and advice purposes and for education, amenity and recreation.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister has just mentioned education. Is he aware that a great deal of environmental education goes on in these reserves? Will he give some assurance that if there is contracting out the educational work will continue and that there will be no charge for it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct. I have stressed the importance of education and certainly that will continue.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, since the government funding for these bodies—the jewel in our

663
crown—has dropped from £2½ million in 1985 to zero last: year, will the Minister provide financial assistance for conservation bodies to assist in their management of important sites for wildlife?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this jewel in the crown is mostly run by English Nature to which the government grant is some £40 million. I cannot say that is no funding.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we keep on hearing this expression "jewel in the crown" which—is the noble Earl aware?—arouses certain suspicions on this side of the House. A jewel in the crown is almost immediately sold off. Will the noble Earl confirm that not only do the Government have no plans, in the terms of the original Question, on the ownership and management of national nature reserves in England, Scotland and Wales, but also that the Government are not even considering carefully —to use his expression of yesterday—such plans? Does he not accept that the national nature reserves are an enormous success and, in the words of my noble friend Lady Nicol, it is vitally important that their management and ownership remain in the public sector?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can confirm that we have no plans nor are we carefully considering any such plans.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if the general principle of contracting out has any basis, the reserves ought not to be excluded from it? There are so many of their functions which can be more efficiently and, I think, more cheaply carried out by outside contractors which need not interfere with the general presentation of the reserves to the nation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is indeed absolutely correct. Contracting out in many instances, including the management of national nature reserves, is very often a sensible and cost-effective method of looking after them.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he did not answer the second part of my question? He said the education would continue; I asked whether there would be any charge for it.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, whether or not there will be any charge will depend upon the actual circumstance. I am not aware at this moment whether there is any charge involved, but it is something that we shall keep carefully at heart.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is it not true that although English Nature is funded in order to look after these reserves, the money for the purchase of nature reserves has now dropped to approximately zero?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, once again the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is totally incorrect. The money spent on the purchase of national nature reserves by English Nature, which includes their management as well, is some £8 million.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Minister agreed with his noble friend that certain functions of national nature reserves could be contracted out. That is interesting. Which functions does he feel would be suitable for that exercise?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thought I had already made that clear. I am particularly referring to the management, running and maintenance of the reserves.

London Hospitals
2.54 p.m.
Lord Molloyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are continuing to receive representations from those working in the health service about the future of London's hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there have been few formal representations from staff working in the London hospitals; but a series of meetings have taken place over a considerable length of time both with staff working in hospitals and others who work in the community and in primary care.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, but is she aware that there are many members of the NHS staff, including surgeons, doctors, staff nurses, nurses and auxiliary staff, who are gravely concerned at what they see as a very serious rundown of the great hospitals in London, including the great teaching hospitals? I hope the Minister will agree that these great hospitals are important not only for London and not only for this country but also in terms of their history and what they can provide in the future for mankind. Those hospitals ought to be preserved and should not be threatened in any way whatsoever.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the National Health Service does have to change with differing needs, both in health and social terms. The King's Fund, a well respected body, has stated this recently. Its director, Robert Maxwell, has said that the,
"balance of health and social care in the capital is not appropriate to the needs of Londoners. However adjusting the balance will inevitably take time. Now the task is to work through these changes on the ground building up good alternatives that are affordable, that work and that make a better framework for the long term".
We agree with that.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, while there may be some of those who work in the health service at all levels in London who are pessimistic, it is also true that there are a great many who are extremely optimistic and enthusiastic about the wonderful new chances they have been given to provide a better service to patients?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. That is the case. Many nurses are seeking new opportunities outside hospitals, working in the community as nurse practitioners with more responsibility. They are finding it a very fulfilling experience.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the Royal Marsden Hospital is now safe so that it can continue its important work in cancer research and treatment free from further uncertainty?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Royal Marsden Hospital has now become a trust. It has to compete in the marketplace in London. I am sure, knowing of its high reputation, the work that it does and the respect that it has nationwide, that it will succeed.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the continuing reports of patients having to wait in casualty departments on trolleys are merely teething problems while things are being sorted out, or will they continue, and, if they are to continue, will she please see that something is done about it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are very anxious that people do not wait on trolleys in accident and emergency departments. We are putting further investment into these departments in several hospitals in London, including £1 million into the Homerton, £8 million into King's and £3.2 million into St. Thomas's. But the noble Countess is absolutely right. It takes time for the completion of all the building work; and all the changes have not yet been made.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Royal Brompton Hospital will survive?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is impossible for me to give a cast-iron assurance for all these hospitals for ever and ever, because we know that things change. This is another special health authority that is now a trust. I believe it has a great deal of expertise and respect and a secure future.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept Professor Brian Jarman's careful analysis which shows that London has no greater excess of hospital beds than any other large city in the UK with similar housing and social problems? Those are factors to which Professor Tomlinson may not have given full weight in his report. Does the noble Baroness not agree with Professor Jarman's view that the crux of the problem is that inner London has too few beds for long stay mentally ill and geriatric patients, and that these are blocking acute beds, with the result that general practitioners, particularly now that the total number of beds is going down, are having greater difficulty than ever in getting acutely ill patients admitted?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is a difference between Professor Jarman's figures and ours. They are on different bases. Professor Jarman's figures are for the whole of London, whereas ours are for inner London, and that is where most of the changes will be. Professor Jarman also included community and long-stay provision. The research that we were doing was on acute services. But we recognise that there is a problem with those who are acutely mentally ill. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has introduced a very active dynamic plan to put more investment into this service.
Lord Rea: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up that point. Does the Minister not realise that general practitioners are finding it difficult to get acutely ill patients with other conditions, not only mental illness, into hospital? The emergency bed service is receiving more calls for help with admissions than it has for many years.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when I last looked into the situation with the emergency bed service about two months ago, it assured me that there had not been a red alert for over two years. I believe that it is going to take a little time for all these changes to come about. But we know that if we are to give a better service to Londoners it means that we have to invest more in primary and community care. Every single statistic we look at shows that they are much poorer in London. To do that we need to get resources from some of the London hospitals. We know that we have too many hospitals and they are inappropriately placed. We need to consolidate and build up expertise in fewer centres of excellence. Then, I believe, we shall have a much better service for Londoners.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many of the surgeons, doctors and nurses who are involved are of the opinion that the health service in London is not starved of funds but is not getting as good a crack of the whip as other parts of the United Kingdom? Bearing in mind what I have already said, I feel that everyone in this House will want to see our health service preserved and the great London hospitals enriched so that they do even greater work than they are doing now. In order to achieve that, will the Minister at least be prepared to consider that it might be right to have serious consultations now with the representatives of surgeons, doctors, nurses and ancillary staff so that we can arrive at a sensible conclusion, shared by everybody, to improve London's wonderful service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have invested £85 million extra in primary and community care and £105 million in the hospital service this year to bring about these changes. We know that London is better resourced than any other part of this country. Of course we work with staff, but we work on a constant basis. There is continuous dialogue: between the trusts, the London Implementation Group, Ministers and staff.

Child Support: Maintenance Formula
3.3 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is true, as stated by Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite on the Jimmy Young Show on 1st March, that for parents paying maintenance under the Child Support Act 1991 "the formula makes it impossible for you to be worse off than if you were on the dole".
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the formula for assessing child maintenance contains an important safeguard called protected income. A calculation is

667
made in all cases to ensure that an absent parent and his second family, if he has one, retains a level of income after paying maintenance which is higher than his income support would be if he were unemployed.
The changes to the scheme introduced in February significantly increased that level of protection, which is now at least £30 above the appropriate income support levels.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for confirming that the level of protected income is £30 above income support. Will he accept that the weekly cost of an annual season ticket from Chelmsford is £37, from Hastings £49, from Eastleigh £52, from Newbury £44 and from Oxford £51? Can he tell us how that is compatible with the view expressed by Mrs. Hepplewhite ?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot possibly confirm the exact costs of travel quoted by the noble Earl. Of course expenses will vary from person to person. For example, for some people a particular method of travel to work will seem essential. Other people will regard some other expense as essential. The All Party Social Security Select Committee agreed that it would be wrong to allow a list of possible arguably essential expenses to take priority over basic child maintenance.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that the figures which have just been read out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicate that many people will have additional expenses over the £30 above income support? I hope that he agrees that that should be noted. Is it still the Government's intention to extend the scheme after 1996 to people who are not drawing any social security? If so, why is it that the Government wish to interfere in arrangements between private persons which have often been made legally through the courts?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, quoted the example of travel costs. It is not possible for the child support formula itself to make someone paying child support maintenance worse off than if he was on the dole. However, if account is taken of other commitments, such as high travel-to-work costs, then some absent parents may indeed perceive themselves to be worse off.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that his replies do not tally with the correspondence that many of us have received from victims of the CSA? Is it not becoming clear that the whole issue has been tackled from the wrong end and that we are attacking the wrong people? Those who already have legal agreements are being penalised with the result that great difficulties are caused where they did not exist before. Is this not another example of a cost-cutting exercise which has gone dramatically wrong and which ought to be put right as soon as possible?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. The basis is the maintenance requirement for keeping a child. The agency is not specifically concentrating its efforts on
668
those absent parents who were already making financial provision for their children. It is estimated that in the first year 60 per cent. of all the cases dealt with were those in which no regular maintenance was previously paid.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the formula is rather inflexible? Would it not be a good idea to introduce a right of appeal? Will the Minister accept that we on this side of the House support the notion that absent, parents should contribute to the maintenance of their children? But should not the system be applied in a rather more sensitive manner than it has been hitherto?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the system is a very sophisticated one which we believe targets resources appropriately. There is an existing appeal system, which is comparable to the social security appeal system. If any of the parties concerned are unhappy with the decision of a child support officer a review can be requested.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there is a small number of people who still believe that the courts are a more appropriate vehicle than a formula?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we believe that the Child Support Agency is the best method for ensuring that the maintenance requirements of children are indeed paid by those who are responsible, the natural parents.

Business of the House: Finance Bill, 29th April
3.8 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Friday next to enable the Finance Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will think it permissible for me to intervene at this moment in view of the fact that I have a Motion down that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill be adjourned to next Tuesday. I am most grateful to the noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches for allowing me to go ahead in this way.
The proposal is that the Finance Bill be taken on a Friday at a time of the year when your Lordships do not normally sit on Friday. Moreover, it is a Friday before a bank holiday. What is more, only 11 days' notice was given that that was proposed. Obviously practically all of your Lordships will have made arrangements for the weekend. The Bill was read a third time in the other place only on Monday. It appeared in the Printed Paper Office only today. It is in two volumes. It runs to 462 pages. I have put down the Motion because it seems to me that the course that is proposed is derogatory to your

669
Lordships' role in the constitution, and indeed difficult to reconcile with the terms of the Writ of Summons from our Sovereign to which your Lordships respond.
On 13th April your Lordships debated the constitutional role of your Lordships' House. There were many notable contributions. What was surprising was the degree of consensus on that occasion, even extending in large respect to those who believe that the composition of your Lordships' House should be altered. It was generally agreed that your Lordships' House has an important role to play in the constitution. That derived largely from the exceptional quality of your Lordships' House—the degree of experience and ability which is recruited and succeeds to your Lordships' House. Indeed, that is a large part of the political legitimacy of your Lordships' House. Whatever issue of public affairs comes before your Lordships, it commands a high degree of expertise, experience and knowledge. If any issue merited such attention, it would be finance, commerce, industry and fiscal matters—in other words, the issues that are contained in a Finance Bill.
It is impossible to enumerate completely, certainly without being invidious, the degree of experience and ability which your Lordships can command. However, one can start with five former Chancellors of the Exchequer, four former Chief Secretaries, a former Chief Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, noble Lords who have had experience in the administration of the fiscal laws in the Inland Revenue, three former governors of the Bank of England, the chairman of one of the biggest joint stock banks, and so on. One could go on almost indefinitely. Therefore, if there were any issue. which merited the attention of the wide knowledge that your Lordships can command, it would be a finance Bill.
I should like to ask this. How many of such people as I have enumerated were consulted? How far was their convenience taken into account? How many are likely to be available on Friday?
I say only this in addition. Owing to the cut-off date under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, the measure must be passed by 5th May. That is why I have amended the Motion that I have put down so that the Finance Bill can be considered next Tuesday, within that time. However, that date, 5th May, is not inscribed in some celestial calendar. It is the creature of the present Government, who put it into a recent Act when the Budget date was changed from the spring to the autumn. So the Government have had ample opportunity all along to know that the cut-off date was 5th May and that the Bill should arrive in your Lordships' House in time for it to be considered.
The Finance Bill was first considered in another place on 25th January. The Government have throughout had control of its progress. Yet it arrived here only on Monday. According to the Companion to the Standing Orders, two weekends should elapse between a Bill being received from the House of Commons and its Second Reading. Your Lordships have sometimes waived that requirement in the case of a Finance Bill. But if ever there was a Finance Bill where such a rule
670
was requisite, it is this Bill—and not one word has been said to explain why that rule should have been disregarded among so many others.
This is a money Bill. However, your Lordships can amend a money Bill, and in the past have frequently done so. Your Lordships do not amend the supply provisions of a finance Bill; but your Lordships are free to amend other provisions notwithstanding that it is a money Bill. Even glancing through those 462 pages, no one can doubt that it is susceptible of improvement and clarification at least in its drafting. I hope that your Lordships will protest against being treated in this way.
I have one other point. A number of noble Lords have frequently sought to use the convenient opportunity of a Consolidated Fund Bill for a debate on general economic and financial matters. They have been brushed aside. They have been brushed aside with the assurance that there is ample opportunity otherwise. The last time was a few months ago when the Consolidated Fund Bill in question arrived conveniently between the economic debate on the Queen's Speech and the arrival of the Finance Bill.
I shall leave that issue to those who are frequently concerned with pressing their case. But it seems extraordinary that, after they have been brushed aside, your Lordships should be treated in this way, with the Finance Bill being put down at short notice on a Friday before a bank holiday.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I believe that it is one of the rare occasions when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is being unreasonable.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Certainly it is. We know that the noble and learned Lord is an expert on matters to do with the procedures of this House and on adhering to standing orders. He is an invaluable watchdog. However, on this occasion, without evidence that the Finance Bill contains provisions which mean that the procedure should be adhered to rigidly, he is being unreasonable. There is no question, as I see it, of the House being ridden over roughshod. The matter is on the Order Paper. If we wish to do so, we can refuse to grant permission to my noble friend to deal with the matter in one day. The power is ours. But the Government suggest that with the business that must be dealt with in this Session this is one occasion when, by putting the two days together, we can carry out our duties.
I much admire the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, but on this occasion he is carrying the fact that he is a purist on such matters to the point where it conflicts with common sense. I should have thought that this is one occasion where we should put the two days together to everyone's advantage, without interfering with the constitutional powers which the House has.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has completely missed the point. The issue is not whether to take two stages of the Bill together. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was that we in this House are not being given the opportunity to discuss the Bill at a

671
reasonable time, having received proper notice of it. In other words, we are not to discuss it on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday but on a Friday before a bank holiday. As I understand it, that is what the noble and learned Lord was talking about. He is absolutely correct in that this House has certain rights. It has those rights because it is the only second Chamber that we have. We should not forget that. We may not agree 'with its constitution but it is the only second Chamber we have. Since the people of this country believe in bicameral government, they are entitled to expect that this House will do its duty properly and be allowed to do so by the Government and their business managers.
It is the Government's business managers who are to blame. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, they must have seen the problem coming and they must know that the House is entitled to expect that it should have a month in which to debate a money Bill. Therefore, they should leave adequate time to deal with it at a time which is convenient to the Members of the House and not when it is convenient to the House of Commons or the Government.
Lastly, I in no way blame the Leader of the House for what has happened. I know that during his period of office he has been careful to protect our interests. Although I believe little can be done on this occasion, I hope and ask the noble Lord that for the future he will ensure that the House of Lords is treated with rather more respect than has happened on this occasion. I ask him to ensure that in future years we have the opportunity to discuss the Bill after having received proper notice and at a proper and convenient time.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, unusually I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It is most regrettable that we should have been presented at such short notice with the discussion on the Finance Bill. It is not a Bill with which we deal in great detail. We do not amend it. It is usually the occasion for a well informed and serious economic debate. Surely there is more than enough need for well informed and serious economic debates in which we may relate to the contents of the Finance Bill without discussing the Bill in all its depth and detail. That is not our role.
It is a great pity that the matter should have been hurried in this way and that we should be asked to deal with the Bill on a Friday. Incidentally, I cannot quite see why it is so impossible for your Lordships' House to talk sense on a Friday as well as on the other four days of the week when we meet. However, I understand that the matter was discussed through the normal channels, who agreed to the procedure. I speak in the absence of my noble friend Lord Tordoff, the Chief Whip of my party, who is much better engaged at present in South Africa. If, as I understand it, he agreed to this through the normal channels, there is nothing we on these Benches can do except agree.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, despite the gallant and loyal effort of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, noble Lords have a simple issue before them: whether or not it is reasonable to expect the House to debate the Finance Bill this Friday. Noble
672
Lords may not all have observed the size and weight of the Bill. It is an enormous measure which was only available in the Printed Paper Office first thing this morning. I say particularly to my noble friend that it is absurd to suggest that it is possible properly to debate the Bill when it has only been available for less than 48 hours in advance of the debate. With respect, that is not treating your Lordships' House properly.
I have no doubt that, as will be said, the usual channels have agreed to it, but the usual channels do not always have wholly in mind the general interests of the House and the fact that the reputation of your Lordships' House depends very much upon the expert nature of the debates that it stages. It has already been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon that the House has an enormous reserve of knowledge on the subject. It is therefore a great pity if we are to be deprived of the opportunity of deploying that amount of knowledge because of the effect on the House's reputation.
Of course, in general we cannot amend the measure. But we debate a great many matters that we cannot amend: delegated legislation, for example. We cannot amend it but it is regularly debated here. The Wednesday debates, like the one this afternoon, often raise matters of importance on which there can be no vote. If noble Lords express intelligent and worthwhile opinions on a matter on which they cannot vote, they influence public opinion. The influence of the House, particularly since proceedings have been broadcast—and here I pay tribute to our broadcasters who do an admirable job—influences public opinion.
It is quite wrong to suggest that 48 hours after the arrival of the Bill the rest of us should be expected to debate the measure on a Friday before a bank holiday. I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House has a sincere concern for the welfare of the House. I ask hire to give further thought to the matter and to understand that the reputation of the House can be much affected by the way it handles matters of great importance.
On the whole, the Finance Bill is the most important measure of the year which merits considerable debate. I do not say that by way of criticism of it, but for your Lordships' House to pass it in circumstances in which the Bill cannot be properly debated is an abdication of our duties which I do not think we should be called upon to implement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like noble Lords' permission to add my support to the contentions that have been advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and those who have agreed with him. One may consider the Finance Bill on its own merits as a taxing statute, a revenue-raising statute or, as in more recent years, the occasion for a debate upon the general economic state of the country. There have been occasions on which both matters have been discussed and that has been so by convention over the past few years.
Few would disagree with the general proposition that the economic affairs of the United Kingdom are in considerable disarray. There are very considerable matters of the utmost and urgent importance that ought to be discussed in this House as well as in another place.

673
From that point of view, to have a debate on a Friday afternoon is a little macabre. Surely the occasion of a debate of this potential—I emphasise the remarks that fell from the lips of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear —ought to be given a prominence that measures up to the importance of the subject.
Time and time again this House is faced with a situation in which matters of great importance which ought to be discussed at more reasonable times of the day and on more accessible days are relegated for some reason and given a far lower priority. I can understand, as your Lordships may also understand, that there are occasions when it suits the Government, and possibly also my noble friends, for the vital national question of salmon farming in Scotland to be given prime time. Indeed, there are many devotees of Scottish salmon in this House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is a red herring!
Lord Bruce of Donington: But for a subject of this importance to be relegated to a Friday afternoon or, in some cases, for measures on issues of very considerable, importance that arise from our membership of the European Community to be relegated somehow for discussion very late at night when the Government, and possibly my noble friends, do not expect people to take very much interest in them, really one must protest. Nationally important matters which cover a wide spectrum and which go right to the roots of British national life ought to be given a prominence in day and in time in this House.
An undertaking was given by the Leader of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will recall, when we discussed the Consolidated Fund Bill that some endeavour would be made to accord the proper priorities and pre-eminence to really important debates which go right to the roots of the nation's fortunes. I hope that we shall receive some assurance upon that point from the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is it not true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, that we do not have any influence on the Finance Bill; and also that we are not able to amend it? If that is so, and bearing in mind the fact that the Finance Bill is as large as the noble. Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has shown it to be, surely it would take a long time for us to prepare for any debate that would be meaningful. Is it not better for us to take the Finance Bill, read it and go through it, and refer to it during the debates that we have on matters such as British industry and manufacturing industry and all the other points that were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale? Otherwise, given the pressure of business, and looking at the Order Paper going forward for the next couple of weeks when we shall be spending so much time on the criminal justice Bill, I cannot see how we are to fit the debate in. It is simply a matter of the logistics of managing the business.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as probably the last Member of this House who actually sat as a Treasury
674
Minister in this House, perhaps I may say how strongly I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in what they said. Over the years the Government have increasingly ridden roughshod over your Lordships' rights, even where those rights are entrenched in statute, as they are in the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act as amended.
I go back to the days when I myself had to take the Finance Bill through this House in circumstances which breached your Lordships' rights under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. I protested most strongly to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe (as he then was). I was given an undertaking that in future the Treasury would do its utmost to ensure that your Lordships' rights were respected. Shortly thereafter Sir Geoffrey Howe was exiled to the Foreign Office, I was exiled to Brussels and the undertaking was conveniently forgotten. But when I came back the matter was raised again. We had at least two, if not three, arguments of this sort in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, myself and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter played a part. One of those discussions related precisely and exactly to the present circumstances; namely, the tabling of a debate on the Finance Bill on a Friday, when the Government could be certain that most Members of this House would be engaged elsewhere.
Perhaps I may remind my noble friend—I do not "remind" him because he was not there—tell my noble friend the Leader of the House that in the days of old, when the Labour Party had backbone, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, mounted an ambush on such a day. But for the vigorous intervention of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, the Government could easily have lost the Finance Bill because there were not enough people present to form a quorum in a Division. Of course the Government are so accustomed to losing their legislation that no doubt they do not mind all that much if on Friday they do not get the Finance Bill through this House. But that shows what happens when memories do not go back far enough.
I suggest that the time has come when the Government need to pay more attention to what noble Lords think and feel. Quite frankly, if noble Lords look at what has been said in this House in the past few weeks, it is difficult to describe the usual channels as anything other than a conspiracy against the interests of the Members of this House. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Leader of the House will not come forward with that particular argument in defence of the monstrous thing that he is trying to do. I hope also that he will not fall for the bait that was offered to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and come up and say that we have had more than ample opportunity to discuss economic affairs. Some of us want to discuss the Finance Bill. And the Finance Bill this year is a monstrous document. I can go further than that and say that it is an absurd document.
What matters is not only the economic state of the country; it is also the state of the tax system. That is a matter that I wish to raise when we come to debate the

675
Finance Bill. As a result of the vigorous efforts of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor, we are now reducing the tax system of this country to a state of total chaos. That is a point that legitimately needs to be made in this House. We can even make that point without upsetting the Government by trying to amend the Finance Bill. On all grounds, it is about time that the Government took a second thought about the way that they treat your Lordships in this matter.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may say one word in support of the Leader of the House. It is not the Leader of the House who should be pilloried today. It is those in another place who have managed their business with a degree of contempt—not only on the Finance Bill but on much other legislation—in the way that it is brought to this House with the minimum of time for our consideration. I suggest that if we divide on the Motion, it should not be on the basis that we are in any way criticising the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred to an ambush laid by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I remember that when I sat on the Benches opposite, I was confronted with amendments to the Finance Bill moved by Conservative Members of this House. I had always assumed that the Finance Bill was sacrosanct. The only such part of the Bill is that part that has been certified by' Mr. Speaker to be a money Bill. Every other part of the Bill is subject to amendment by this House if it so wishes.
I take the explanation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that the Bill was concluded in the other place on Monday and came to this House yesterday. By no shadow of a suggestion could this House ever consider a Bill until it is in fact before it. There is no way in that short period of time to take the Motion of the Leader of the House without first of all looking to see what part of that Bill has been certified and falls within the restrictions of our standing orders.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Is not what he says consistent with deferring debate from Friday until next Tuesday? That is still within the number of days laid down.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I intended to come to that point. I seek to support the noble and learned Lord and others. Under the present procedure we do not have the opportunity to look at the Bill in any kind of detail.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord but I do not want the debate to get off on the wrong track. All the advice that I have received is that this Bill is a money Bill and cannot be amended by your Lordships, nor can any part of it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdlale: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House consult the Companion to the Standing Orders? I think he will find that a money Bill can be amended.
Lord Wakeham: The answer is that a money Bill can be amended but a supply Bill cannot. I think that the point that I was making—namely, that this particular Bill cannot be amended—is still correct.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I bring my remarks to a conclusion by reacting to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. There has been a lack of sensitivity in terms of the way in which this Motion has been put on the Order Paper. I hope that we do not have to take a Division upon the Motion. As I said earlier, I do not hold the Leader of the House responsible, other than as a member of the Government.
To avoid any dispute on the Motion, I suggest to the Leader of the House that we should agree that it should be taken back. I am sure that the House will be ready to respond to a debate taken next week on whatever day is convenient to the Government. I am sure that if the Leader of the House so responded, he would find no aggravation and no obstruction in the passage of this Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about this matter. I have very considerable sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, had to say. The House may be surprised that, for once, I am also in sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is not usual that we find ourselves even in sympathy on the same side of the argument. I am bound to say that some of their comments made a great deal of sense and had force.
What is the real problem—whence cometh it? It comes simply from the fact that the other place in the Finance Act 1993 established 5th May as the date by which this Bill has to be passed. It is very clear and is effected in Section 205(4) of that Act.
I have some sympathy with and possible attraction to the notion that we do not pass the Bill by 5th May. If we do not, I am advised that the provisions for excise duty on wine, cider, tobacco and petrol as well as income tax for the financial year 1994–95 will fall. It is a proposition of some attractiveness. But I suppose one has to say that it is not the function of this House to negate the fiscal provisions which have been passed by another place. Therefore we have to get the Bill through by 5th May.
I feel that it was somewhat insensitive of the Government, knowing that 5th May was the deadline, to organise business in the other place in such a way that the Bill reached this House only within the last 48 hours and, indeed, has only just been printed. Other noble Lords have made that point and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. I agree with it. I hope very much—I express the hope on behalf of the Opposition—that the Leader of the House will do his best to ensure that this situation does not happen again.
One knows that in the past Finance Bills taken at the end of July have been in a rush in this House. But I do not believe that they have been in quite such a rush as on this occasion, though I may be wrong about that. The Leader of the House should take on board the feelings that have been expressed in this Chamber today. They

677
are strong and widely felt. To present your Lordships' House with a Finance Bill of such complexity a day or so before it is to be debated is not the way in which the Government should behave.
So far as concerns the Opposition and the usual channels, we were told that we have to have the Bill by 5th May. That is perfectly true. We were also told that there were two possible days on which it could be debated. One was Friday of this week and the other was Tuesday of next week. We were told that the Government wished to have the third Committee day of the Coal Bill on Tuesday next week. In those circumstances we took the view that, if the Government wanted to debate the Finance Bill on Friday of this week, we would accept that. That remains our position today. If the Government wish the debate to take place on Friday, then in accordance with the discussions that took place through the usual channels, so far as we are concerned the debate can take place on Friday.
Let me say just one word about that. The part of the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, which I do not totally follow is that part which argues that somehow it is worse to debate the Bill on the day before a bank holiday than it would be to debate it on the day after a bank holiday. When my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip and I discussed this matter, it seemed to me that there was very little to choose between having the debate on Friday of this week or having it on Tuesday of next week.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, presented his proposition that the debate should be on Tuesday as, so to speak, a firm proposition and a practical suggestion to the House or whether it was a peg on which he wished to hang constitutional points. If it was the latter—a peg upon which constitutional points were to be made—I am, if I may mix metaphors, with him on the peg. In terms of support for a resolution to move the debate from Friday this week to Tuesday next week, I hope I have made clear that that would not be a proposition that the Opposition could support.
So far as I am concerned, at any rate, I think that there is force in the criticism that has been made. I hope that the Leader of the House will take it on board and act upon it in the future.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, first, though it may not seem so, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who took this opportunity to raise some very important points. I shall do my best to answer them. I fully understand why the noble and learned Lord—indeed, he was supported by a number of your Lordships—feels that Friday would not be an appropriate day to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the Finance Bill is an important Bill and that debates on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill afford the House a useful opportunity to debate economic affairs in general.
I know also that the House will take most seriously the advice on such matters which the noble and learned Lord chooses to offer. Nevertheless, this Friday will
678
afford the House the best opportunity for such a debate, given the other important matters which your Lordships wish to address both in the context of the Government's legislative programme and other matters—for instance, the debate on the Select Committee on Medical Ethics which will take place shortly.
Your Lordships have debated Finance Bills on Fridays quite frequently in modern times. I was reminded when my noble friend Lord Cockfield was going down memory lane that prior to 1979 a great many Finance Bills were actually taken formally in this House and not debated at all. That position has now been dispensed with and I make no complaint about that. But Finance Bills were taken on a Friday in July 1981, July 1986, July 1990 and July 1991.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. He will recollect no doubt that those were all times with a Spring Budget. The cut-off date was therefore 5th August. Your Lordships' House then sat on a Friday in July as your Lordships habitually do. But your Lordships do not normally sit on a Friday at this time of year. That is why noble Lords were taken by surprise when they had made arrangements for the weekend and suddenly found that a Friday was proposed for so important a Bill as the Finance Bill.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord made that point in his speech. It is an important point and I am seeking to deal with it. If your Lordships will allow me I shall try to put the argument in the way I can handle it best.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. Can he say, in the examples that he quoted, how much notice was given of the debate? What was the interval between production of the Bill and the date of debate?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, certainly. However, I shall seek to answer the debate in my own way. That is another point I shall seek to deal with as I go through what I am afraid will be a relatively long intervention. But I shall deal with it as quickly as I can.
I know that some noble Lords view Friday sittings with a certain amount of unease. For my part I feel that where business might otherwise be constrained by the lateness of the hour or by other competing pressures, Friday sittings can, with benefit, afford the opportunity for a more full and measured debate. I suggest that the fact that there are already 11 speakers on the list to participate in the debate on Friday suggests that the debate being held on a Friday proved no disincentive. There were 11 speakers in all in the debate on the 1992 Finance Bill and 14 in the debate on last year's Bill. Both of those Bills were taken on other days of the week.
Given the importance which many noble Lords attach to the debate next Thursday on the Coal Industry Bill it would not be for the overall convenience of the House now to change plans and displace that business for the Finance Bill which, after all, for some time had been fixed to take place next Friday by agreement

679
through the usual channels. The sitting was publicised in the forthcoming business issued on 14th April and put down in the Minutes of Proceedings on 18th April.
Perhaps I can deal with the other points by briefly outlining the background to the timing of the Finance Bill. Certain of the Budget resolutions on which the Finance Bill is partly founded are given special statutory force under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. The 1968 Act originally provided that resolutions on these issues should be given temporary statutory effect for a March or April Budget until 5th August that year. Each Finance Bill now contains provisions replicating the effect of those resolutions and doing so retrospectively. The authority for tax changes thus passes from the resolutions of another place to the provisions of the Finance Act itself. Under the old Budget arrangements your Lordships were therefore accustomed to receive the Finance Bill towards the middle of July and to give Second Reading and Royal. Assent to the Bill before the Summer Recess or 5th August. The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act has now been amended in respect of the new Budget date to provide that the Commons' resolutions now expire on 5th May. In short, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition made clear, that means that Royal Assent for the Finance Bill is now required by 5th May.
Perhaps I may mention some of the dates going back in the past. In 1992 the House of Commons had its Third Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill on 8th July; the proceedings in your Lordships' House were on 14th July. The Third Reading in the House of Commons of the first 1992 Bill was on 13th March and the proceedings were on 16th March, although noble Lords will recall that that was just before the general election. In 1991 the proceedings in the Commons finished on 16th July; your Lordships dealt with the matter on 19th July. In 1990 the proceedings in the Commons were on 17th July and it was dealt with on 20th July. In 1987 the Commons dealt with it on 20th July and the proceedings were on 23rd July. In 1987 the Commons dealt with it on 12th May and it was dealt with in your Lordships' House on 14th May. In 1982 it was dealt with by the' Commons on 14th July and by your Lordships on 20th July.
There is therefore a history of dealing with these matters in a relatively short space of time. The fact that the Bill has been certified as a money Bill does, I agree, give your Lordships the theoretical ability under the Parliament Acts to consider the Bill for a month before it goes for Royal Assent. However, from the descriptions I have already given —indeed, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition put it more graphically than I—of the troubles that would occur given the effect of the lapse of the Commons' resolutions under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, your Lordships would be ill-advised to insist on that. I am not aware of any occasion in recent years, save in the years in which the general elections intervened, in which a Finance Bill has been sent up to your Lordships' House more than a month before the date on which the relevant resolutions expired. Nor is there any
680
occasion on which your Lordships contemplated interpreting the provisions of the Parliament Act in such a manner.
Your Lordships will be aware that some Finance Bills have been certified as money Bills and some not. That is purely a decision for the Speaker and that decision is only known when the Bill arrives in your Lordships' House from another place. In this case that was on Monday. Your Lordships would need to consider carefully whether it would be sensible or appropriate to contemplate asking the other place, which has the exclusive right to consider Finance Bills in detail, to curtail its deliberations on such Finance Bills simply to enable your Lordships' House to have a month in which to debate the Second Reading of such a Bill in the event the Speaker certified it as a money Bill.
Nevertheless, I recognise the strength of feeling in the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in his original speech and emphasised in his intervention, and the point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, that this year's Bill, which is the first Bill that arises from the unified Budget in November, has given rise to a rather different set of circumstances than previous Budget arrangements. If there is anything that we can do in the context of those arrangements in the future I shall be happy to look at the matter again; to discuss it with any noble Lords who feel that better arrangements can be made and to discuss it with the usual channels to give your Lordships as much time as possible and avoid a Friday if at all possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Motion in the name of the Viscount Waverley set down for this day shall be limited to five hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Commonwealth
4 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley rose to call attention to the role and future of the Commonwealth; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we are here today to listen to an exchange of views on the role and future of the Commonwealth. We are privileged to be addressed this afternoon by two maiden speakers—the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond, a former head of the Diplomatic Service and an undoubted specialist on Commonwealth and other matters involving the national interest. I am confident I echo your Lordships' sentiments when I say how much we are looking forward to their contributions.
The Commonwealth has grown from a few dominions to 50 members in the past 40 years. It is the largest multilateral organisation other than the United Nations, spanning a quarter of the world's land area. Its peoples derive from all five continents and from every

681
major regional bloc and economic zone, uniting large and small, developed and developing nations, as equals on common ground. This common ground consists of a complex web of essential principles and values.
Hallowed principles include democracy and democratic processes, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, just and honest government and fundamental human rights. These often repose cheek by jowl, sometimes even in conflict with, such bedrock values as a common commitment to equality for women, universal access to education, sustainable development, the alleviation of poverty in member countries, protection of the environment and the promotion of international consensus on major issues.
The Commonwealth is the first and only organisation to recognise that small states are a special category which merit separate consideration and action. Its seminal expert group report on the vulnerability of small states has been adopted by the United Nations as an official document. The Commonwealth, through the Secretariat, continues to liaise with the United Nations and NGOs to rescue from the morass of definitions of "human rights" a workable solution reflecting the disparate cultural and economic conditions of its members. Human rights are actively promoted by providing training and assistance to countries, designed' to assist institution building, a recent example being human rights workshops and institutional development in the Gambia.
It has also responded in a practical way to the need to promote democracy more vigorously by developing a niche for its experts in the electoral process of its members. Top Commonwealth observers are dispatched to monitor elections in their entirety, most recently in Pakistan, Lesotho, Guyana and Kenya among others. The interactive nature of the "Commonwealth way" shares the expertise of eminent Commonwealth citizens, not least of which have been Members of your Lordships' House, with potential or fledgling legislators. Their presence helps to restore much-needed confidence in the electoral process and in multi-party democracy. The success of this three year-old endeavour can be measured by the reduction in non-democracies among its members; from nine at the 1991 Harare CHOGM to four at present, of which Malawi has elections in May and Sierra Leone has made a commitment to a return to democracy.
The flagship of Commonwealth work—perhaps its most public face—has been the task of bringing. apartheid to world attention. We have witnessed the unleashing of pent-up passions in that former Commonwealth member country with trepidation. Yet we welcome this day and hope that it marks the beginning of the new democratic South Africa.
Much-needed Commonwealth assistance with violence, crowd control, policing and mediation has been provided in the run up to today's elections. Five Members of your Lordships' House are in that country, assisting as Commonwealth election monitors in the transition to a non-racial democracy.
The Commonwealth has recognised the need for pragmatism and progress; once its sanctions programme
682
was ended, immediate steps were taken to tap into multilateral funding sources to train and empower South Africa's new citizens. It may be that the Commonwealth work in this area has really just begun.
It has been a long, tortuous journey for that country. We bid God speed, and look forward to its re-entry into the Commonwealth family at the earliest opportunity. A stable South Africa will have benefits for other nations in a region of the world dominated by Commonwealth member states.
In addition to activity at government levels, there is a unique informal network of tens of thousands of people in non-governmental organisations, promoting contacts and exchanging knowledge, skills, information and ideas between professionals of different countries facing similar problems; the so-called "unofficial" Commonwealth. They are the cement, keeping the brickwork in place. Co-ordination is facilitated by the Secretariat and the Commonwealth Foundation.
I should like to turn briefly to three familiar pillars of the infrastructure. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association would benefit from active support by Members of both Houses of Parliament. The UK branch does a useful job at Westminster arranging conferences and meetings with visiting members from Commonwealth Parliaments. Parliamentarians everywhere have an essential responsibility to safeguard democracy by ensuring that good governance prevails. It is argued that its effectiveness could be enhanced if its status were altered from that of a UK charity to an international organisation, under the provisions of the International Organisations Act 1968. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will share his thoughts on the merits of such a development.
The Commonwealth Institute was set up to promote awareness of the Commonwealth throughout Britain. Appropriate changes need to be made to the institute, in the light of withdrawal of government support after 1996. These changes could include a decentralisation of the institute to all member countries as part of an effort to enhance awareness. The institute has a vision of its work for the future, which explores ingenious self-financing schemes through partnership with the private sector. If decentralisation to all member countries occurs, I believe there will be a justifiable basis for an equitable formula for contributions to the institute's budget from Commonwealth governments as well. Certainly, the Secretary-General, Mr. Stephen Cox, is doing an excellent rearguard job, and deserves your Lordships' support.
The Commonwealth, through the Secretariat, plays a substantial role in the combating of drug trafficking and abuse, attempts to help the waves of refugees, problems of third world debt, technical and medical co-operation, environmental strategies, and much more. It serves its members' interests as far as its budget allows. It is prudent, however, for it to continue to operate chiefly in those areas where it has "comparative advantage". For instance, concern for the environment expressed in the Langkawi Declaration of 1989 was followed by pioneering action such as Guyana's offer of nearly 1

683
million acres of its rain forest for a sustainable forestry project, and the pace-setting pre-Rio conference on sea level changes, hosted by the Maldives.
Multi-faceted action to improve the plight of its poorer members is channelled through the operational division of the Secretariat, the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, where marketing, export promotion, training, health, agriculture and even specialised legal, industrial and technical expertise is made available. A notable example has been the specially developed debt management system which has benefited more than 35 countries and which is sought after by many non-Commonwealth countries.
The Commonwealth Secretariat is relatively small and sparsely financed compared to other international organisations. It has been re-structured into a leaner and fitter organisation, though its overall tasks have not become lighter. It is recognized that in a fast-changing world all institutions need to be examined every few years.
The programmes of the Commonwealth are widely acclaimed to be effective and, by international standards, economical. Members pay very little in comparison to all the returns. Greater recognition of its exemplary benefits is hampered by a poor, out-dated public image. Few people realize just how much of practical value is accomplished annually. While a low profile is consistent with the Commonwealth's behind-the-scenes methodology, it rather plays into the hands of its detractors.
Many tangible advantages accrue as a result of membership. One of the most important is access to 49 friendly countries who share certain common traditions, language and outlook. The Commonwealth's diversity is its strength, and its unity is built on acceptance of this. The development of understanding between, for example, Islamic Pakistan, Christian Caribbean, Buddhist Sri Lanka, and the commitment to opposing the sort of racial prejudice which has once again appeared in Europe, underpin the Commonwealth approach.
Does Britain's foreign policy include a decisive, well thought-out role in Commonwealth matters? I believe we grossly under-sell the importance of the Commonwealth and it should command greater attention in discussions of foreign policy issues in Britain. We have an enormous stake, and asset, in the Commonwealth. We must avoid the danger of giving the impression that Britain attaches less and less significance to the Commonwealth as new circumstances emerge; for example, our membership of the European Union. We have an important role to assume as respected broker for both organisations.
It is said a sense of apathy and indifference exists, displayed by the lack of public support from Her Majesty's Government. And yet I discovered that Britain has the Commonwealth near to the centre of its aid programme because 66 per cent. of bilateral aid goes to Commonwealth countries. However, it is necessary to ask: how much is that in real terms? If aid is tied, do British industrialists and exporters see appropriate returns? Our bilateral trade with Commonwealth friends
684
totals £10.3 billion, some 20 per cent. of our worldwide performance. We cannot afford to see this figure diminished.
For her part, Britain certainly derives many advantages from membership. Political credibility with European partners and North Atlantic allies is enhanced, and influence within the Commonwealth partly justifies our place on the United Nations Security Council. United platforms can be forged to address world issues, and coherent action pursued within the United Nations system. This link in turn gives Commonwealth members direct access to a Security Council member.
Commonwealth students bring experience and diversity to UK universities, colleges, and to the wider community. Benefits accrue when these students take up positions of influence in their home countries.
And what of the future? The Harare Commonwealth Declaration was a turning point, and clearly defined the nature of things to come. Heads of government reaffirmed their confidence in the Commonwealth as a voluntary association of sovereign independent states, each responsible for its own policies, consulting and co-operating in the interest of their peoples, and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace. They expressed their determination to renew and enhance the value and importance of the Commonwealth as an institution, which can and should strengthen and enrich the lives, not only of its own members and their peoples, but also of the wider community of peoples of which they are a part. This was reaffirmed at Limassol.
The Secretary-General, Chief Anyaoku, through whose commitment and dexterity the organisation has performed well and grown in stature, has ensured that the Commonwealth is uniquely equipped, both by virtue of its character and through its activities, to help its membership and the wider international community, by responding to a number of the challenges of today and tomorrow. I believe that this House should pay tribute to him. He has outlined clear goals, endorsed by heads of government, for the 21st century. The divisive potential of plural societies forced to accept arbitrary borders with scarce natural and financial resources; faced with threats to their identity, culture and way of life, with many elements often denied a sufficiently active role in governance mechanisms, is all too often the reality of the new world order; and the Commonwealth, through the good-offices of the Secretary-General, is a practised peacemaker.
The challenge of human resource development to assist its members is another area. An important practical step has been the signing last week of a memorandum of understanding with Singapore, aimed at improving management structures and systems in government and public enterprise. The programme has been designed to assist other Commonwealth governments as they embark on the task of administrative and managerial reforms.
The Commonwealth as a whole must try to solve difficulties and problems among two or more members on the basis of consensus. Should difficulties arise with no such consensus, perhaps individual countries would submit to arbitration by the Commonwealth. The

685
Commonwealth is ideally suited to provide its good offices for conflict prevention and resolution, given the discreet way in which it can operate. Twice in the past three months those good offices have helped to defuse tensions in Lesotho. There is potential for their use elsewhere. Indeed, there may be scope for the Commonwealth to play a role in the area of peacekeeping, in a way which supports and reinforces the obviously pre-eminent role of the United Nations in this field.
Human rights recognition for all citizens of the Commonwealth seeking to defend their civil and other liberties is needed. A specially convened panel to hear complaints and empowered to require Government's to respond would perhaps go some way towards satisfying the expectations of your Lordship's House.
Finally, I trust our deliberations here today will reveal the wisdom of Mr. Arnold Smith, the first Secretary-General, when he remarked:
"A hundred years from now, historians will consider the Commonwealth the greatest of all Britain's contributions to man's social and political history."
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I must begin with an apology. Owing to a very longstanding commitment I shall not be able to be here to listen to the winding-up speeches. In all my years in your Lordships' House I believe that this is the first time that I have sought such an indulgence. I hope that I may be excused on this occasion.
I would like to pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for his thoughtful and interesting speech. He has provoked a very timely debate, taking place as it does in the week of the historic South African general election. I listened last night to Mr. de Klerk saying that a new South Africa has been born. I listened to Nelson Mandela, who spent most of his adult life in prison, speak without a word of bitterness and looking, even at the age of 75, only to the future. I believe that the world is fortunate to have two leaders on either side of what has been such a deep racial divide with such courage and vision. Now, as the noble Viscount said, the general election in South Africa opens up a new chapter for the Commonwealth, with South Africa now in a position to rejoin the Commonwealth family.
I speak as the last Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs in a British Government. I have always regarded the post-war transformation of Empire into Commonwealth as a truly great British achievement. It is true that not all the high hopes and visions that some of us had in days now past—that the Westminster model might be more exportable than it has sometimes proved to be; that there might be a Commonwealth defence identity, a Commonwealth economic identity and perhaps a Commonwealth court —have not always proved realistic or realisable. But the hope of successive British Governments in building on the great achievement of the Commonwealth has been bedevilled in the past by two great post-Imperial problems: South Africa's retreat into apartheid and
686
repression and the Rhodesian rebellion. The latter was finally resolved by the statesmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my old friend and colleague the late Lord Soames. Now, as we have said, South Africa can rejoin the Commonwealth family.
The fact that the Commonwealth has survived as a positive multi-racial group in world affairs, described in such useful detail by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in the face of those divisive pressures is due, I think, in large part to the role that Her Majesty the Queen has played over many years. Nobody has done more in a quiet and dignified way to provide a personal focal point for all the members of the Commonwealth in the face of many conflicting tensions.
I had the privilege and responsibility when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, whom I am glad to see in his place, was Prime Minister of travelling round the Commonwealth at his request to seek to prepare the Commonwealth heads of government for a meeting that was to take place in the Queen's jubilee year. It was a time of great difficulty for Britain in the Commonwealth and we wondered whether all members of the Commonwealth would be equally enthusiastic about joining us on what we hoped would be a very notable occasion. I discovered that no head of any Commonwealth state needed any persuading at all to come here to London at the invitation of the Queen. The only problems that I had were whether certain dietary problems of a special nature would create any difficulty at the state banquet in Buckingham Palace! That illustrated to me how the Commonwealth was still very much alive and how much it owed to the Queen as its head.
As the noble Viscount said, as well as being a group of independent sovereign states with historic links from having been part of the British Empire, the Commonwealth enjoys in a very important sense an international, multi-racial, personal relationship fortunately going very much deeper than the ephemeral disputes of politicians. The noble Viscount rightly referred to the many non-governmental links in the professions and among students, teachers, doctors, lawyers and many other groups of people. I think, for example, of the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, in which I remember being involved from the Opposition Benches many years ago. That has now lasted for 33 years and very nearly 20,000 Commonwealth scholars and fellows have enjoyed the multi-lateral experience of going to another country in the Commonwealth for a further stage of their education. I should like to pay tribute, first, to successive United Kingdom Governments who have throughout played a major role in the scheme, as in other forms of aid. I believe that more than 60 per cent. of those Commonwealth scholarships are provided by Her Majesty's Government. I should like to pay tribute also to the quiet and constructive work of the Commonwealth Secretariat in this area and to the Association of Commonwealth Universities.
I echo the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that the Commonwealth Secretariat might take a rather higher profile and be seen to be more active in some of its operations. I think, for example, that it

687
would be useful if the Commonwealth Secretariat, reflecting, as it does, one of the great groupings in the world, established a closer relationship with the European Community and the European Commission in Brussels. I may be misinformed but I believe I am right in thinking that no Secretary General of the Commonwealth Secretariat has ever paid an official visit to Brussels and the European Commission. That could be productive in terms of overseas development aid.
The change in South Africa presents a new challenge. In our global economy, Africa is the only continental economy suffering an absolute decline in its GDP and with an increasing level of poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, spoke movingly of that in a debate in your Lordships' House not long ago. I hope that South Africa, with its human and natural resources, properly helped and harnessed, can play a big part in reversing that trend in sub-Saharan Africa.
I conclude that the Commonwealth, with the Queen at its head, has still a useful and reconciliatory role to play in our troubled multi-racial world.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on the manner in which he opened the debate.
I came into Parliament in 1945. Soon afterwards, I was sent on a parliamentary mission with the noble Lords, Lord Wyatt and Lord Aldington, to inform the Indian leaders, Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah, that the Labour Government intended to transfer power to them. Soon afterwards, a Cabinet mission went there, composed of Pethick Lawrence, Stafford Cripps and Alexander. Soon after that independence followed. Thus was created the new Commonwealth.
Eventually I became the Commonwealth Secretary and had the opportunity to visit many of the Commonwealth countries. Most of the past and present Commonwealth leaders I know well. They all take a close interest in the well-being of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is made up of an extraordinary mixture of countries like the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. There are the West Indian islands, the African countries and the outposts like the Seychelles, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. The Commonwealth is an example of international co-operation among countries of totally different levels of economic wealth, civilised advance and living standards.
I joined the European Movement and the Empire Parliamentary Association at the end of the last war. I saw nothing contradictory in doing so. We are linked with the European Community. The aim is to match politically and economically the power of the USA and Japan. The Commonwealth enjoys the advantages of a common language and a long history of many friendly and intimate contacts at all levels.
Lee Kuan Yew once asked me, "Why don't you British take the lead in Commonwealth affairs?" He said, "You should hold your heads high and stick your chests out". When I said to him that the days were gone
688
when Britain had the military might or economic strength to strut the world, he replied that it was not military might or economic strength that were needed but moral leadership, which the British could give not just to the Commonwealth but to the world. It is very encouraging that such an intelligent statesman should think so highly of us.
I have talked at length with some of the Commonwealth leaders and suggested to them that they should follow the democratic traditions of the Commonwealth. When I was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, the Commonwealth Secretariat was created to co-ordinate the work of Commonwealth countries and to organise formal meetings every two years between heads of governments. Meetings are also organised to deal with practical problems of mutual trade, poverty, indebtedness, medical and scientific problems and human rights. The Secretary General is Chief Anyaoku, a man of talent and experience.
There is then the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whose secretary general, Arthur Donahoe, is doing an excellent job. Three hundred or more Commonwealth Members of Parliament meet in one Commonwealth country or another. They are not selected by governments. They come as individual MPs to debate and give guidance to governments as a result of their deliberations. The UK branch plays a special part in the work of the CPA. The secretary is Peter Cobb, a very hard worker who is backed by a most efficient staff. The office is open for the welcome of Commonwealth MPs, and scores of visiting Commonwealth MPs are entertained to lunch in the Houses of Parliament.
A parliamentary seminar on parliamentary practice and procedure is held each year, and usually about 24 delegates, representing 24 legislatures, attend. Race relations is of great concern to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the CPA pay particular attention to that problem. Field Marshal Smuts once told me that peace and security would be ensured only if there were equality of the races. To my query as to how he would try to bring that about, he said that he was trying to bring the Indians into the administration but that they had declined. The white population was incensed and voted against him. The Nationalist Party came into being, and apartheid followed.
It is fashionable in some quarters to deride the Commonwealth as a body which has no relevance in the modern world, but the fact that over 50 nations, most of them of considerable importance in the world, still wish to preserve that multi-racial society speaks for itself.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is often difficult to speak when one is sandwiched between experts. With the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, following, I know that I dare not speak on anything to do with foreign policy or foreign affairs, and I shall probably steer clear of all politics. Therefore, there is nothing left for me to do except perhaps to speak as a rather faded merchant. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley,

689
for presenting so well and in such an informed and dispassionate manner the scenario of the Commonwealth as it is today.
My intervention will begin with the past and go on to the future where, undoubtedly, I may be provocative. I begin by saying to myself, "What is the point of the Commonwealth? What value does it have? What does the United Kingdom get out of it, and what does it get out of us?" I go back to the past, and it is always a mistake to go back beyond the day of one's birth. I go back to some 14 days after my birth in 1937 when the Admiralty produced an excellent chart that one will find in the Department of Transport today. It shows the position of the ships of Her Majesty's merchant marine at 12 noon on a particular day in the second week of November.
There were 1,500, or more, ships at sea; 750 in harbour; and a further 250 or more on lakes and rivers. The map or chart is simple. It has two colours: red and black on white. The ships' flags, naturally, were all red, and a large part of the world was red: it was the greatest empire the world had ever seen. Today, not so long after, there are some 450 ships in Her Majesty's mercantile marine, of which I think, 320 are at sea, flying the red flag. There are few countries left which are part of the empire and they are called dependent territories. The word "dependent" makes me think. Only 10 years after that chart was produced we had been through a major war; the break up of the empire began; and the Commonwealth rose up from it.
If one considers the transition period of many of the Commonwealth countries, it was not particularly easy. They did not have a good deal in common. It began with what might today call the fundamentalist terrorist activities of beating up the British, followed often by putting in British troops or arresting the leading terrorists who would then be locked up for a number of years as extremists. The leader would then be let out, and there would be democratic elections. He would be duly elected and become a great friend of the United Kingdom and, in particular, of Her Majesty.
One wonders why that transition of such stress was necessary. Would not it have been possible to manage that change more easily? Those stresses and strains helped to build and strengthen relationships. We and our fellow members of the Commonwealth know well how great those problems have been, but they caused one major piece of damage to the world economy. From what was basically political stability, came political chaos and a breakdown in the economy. No one was prepared to invest in or trade with countries where such chaos existed, and their economies collapsed. I suggest that the reason our empire was created originally was economic, not necessarily political. There were political moves when we took Aquitaine and parts of France with the longbow, which I gather even today has a range of over 800 yards and will always outdo a crossbow—nothing of course like a super gun! But we had steam and we could take over countries that were nearer to us in a direct line rather than have to rely on the sailing boats which had been responsible for the development of other people's empires.
690
What happened? Economically, if we look at it now, as a trading partner the Commonwealth is not of particularly great significance to us, and we are not of particularly great significance to it. Perhaps in joining the EC we destroyed the preferential trade with the Commonwealth and destroyed those relationships, but that would have come any way with the market economy. There were two things that caused the greatest break up of all. One was the floating of currencies where suddenly, almost over night, the softer currency countries had no reference point and no stability. The second was obviously the tremendous hike in oil and energy prices which, combined with the devaluation of their own currencies, left them unable to trade and reliant more and more upon aid. With that reliance upon aid came more and more demands: "It was the fault of the British. It is your fault. You should help us. You have put us in this mess. It is you who drew the lines in the sand in the wrong places". But the people who were responsible for that are either long since dead or out in some very peaceful pastures.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, pointed out, some 30 per cent. of United Nations countries are members of the Commonwealth. The number of countries seems to be growing fast. I always thought that there were about 210 countries but I checked in the Library and there are now 244 in the world. That seems to be the biggest growth of all time. As greater independence comes, so more countries seem to emerge.
Does the Commonwealth have an economic role as a major trading partner? No, it does not because it is a collection of individual trading countries and each country will be assessed and examined in terms of its own trading potential and the stability of its economy. But it does have a role because without political stability there is no economic growth and no trade. I believe that countries which are members of the Commonwealth should have a better credit rating in relation to stability and should be regarded as more reliable and trusted as trading partners. Those matters are beginning to develop almost through—I hate to say it—the old boy network or the usual channels.
We sit here today and ask what our own future is to be. If we remain an isolated island, it is not a bright future. Most of my international friends say, "You have a great future. You are the nicest, safest and most attractive country in which to live", although it is not necessarily the best place in which to work or develop. But we are a nice country made up of nice people. We have brilliant people at the Foreign Office who are capable of boxing way above their weight.
We have a role. There are no Commonwealth territories in the United States or in the former Soviet Union. With certain small exceptions, there are no Commonwealth territories within the EC. We are there perhaps as the leader of what I hate to call the third world and what I prefer to call the developing world. I believe that we can play that role well. I believe, too, that we should give consideration to extending the Commonwealth. Why should we not extend membership of the Commonwealth to all those countries

691
which have an historical relationship with the United Kingdom? There are many such countries and I have visited some recently.
Some of the most difficult countries regard us as having tremendous power and influence over the Commonwealth. In fact, it is often the other way round. If one considers the Gleneagles Agreement, and others like that, the Commonwealth has far greater influence over us. But the Commonwealth has a role to play in the world and in the creation of political stability. It is not a mini-United Nations. I believe that successive governments have done their best. Above all, I pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen, who is one of the best-informed people in the world.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, in asking for your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon, I hope that it is proper for me also to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on his timely initiative in calling for this debate today. He is, as your Lordships may know, in a real sense, more wedded to the Commonwealth than any of us.. Indeed, I should like to add my personal congratulations to him and to the High Commissioner of Belize on their recent marriage.
But I must dissociate myself from the noble Viscount's over-generous remarks about my so-called expertise on the Commonwealth. I have noticed, with the help of the Librarian, that a number of your Lordships have compared the experience of a maiden speaker to that of a new boy at school. That is exactly how I feel, particularly following two former Commonwealth secretaries. Any maiden speaker must feel daunted when speaking for the first time in an assembly where so many of the senior prefects, as it were, have much greater experience of whatever subject is under debate.
I certainly felt daunted but also I felt immensely honoured and privileged to be summoned to join your Lordships' House. I was also very surprised, although not quite in the same way as my 90 year-old and rather deaf mother who, on being told, just before the New Year honours list was published, that I was moving to the Lords, expressed astonishment that I should be mowing the lawn in late December.
It is a happy coincidence that today's debate falls on the very day on which South Africans of all races go to the polls for the first time in history. Today's election is a reminder of an important new role which the Commonwealth has assumed in recent years; namely, to provide observer missions at elections—with the help and participation, I might add, of Members of this House. I understand that, in the past three years, Commonwealth missions have been sent to observe elections in nine countries, but none of them has been of the size or complexity of the mission which the Commonwealth Secretary-General has mounted for South Africa, in co-operation with the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and the European Union. The fact that the Commonwealth stands at the forefront of this mission to assist South Africa's momentous process of transition is, as Chief Emeka Anyaoku put it in a recent speech,
692
"evidence of its reputation and rich experience, with the problems of pluralism".
South Africa's problems will not end the day the new government are installed. I hope that the Commonwealth will be able to help out in the difficult period which follows the election, as it has done in Namibia and Mozambique. It can help by re-establishing links which have withered since 1962: in the academic world, in the professions, in medical and charitable organisations. South Africa's return to the Commonwealth, if that is what the new South African Government want, would allow the Commonwealth itself to move into a new phase.
For too long, Commonwealth meetings in the 1970's and 1980's concentrated on South Africa and sanctions, while overlooking the issue of accountable government in many Commonwealth countries. At Harare in 1991, under President Mugabe's chairmanship, the Commonwealth rose to the challenge. In the clear language of the Harare Declaration, which owed much to the input of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, the Commonwealth declared what it stood for. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has already summarised parts of it, but I think it may be worth quoting more fully. It states:
"the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth: democracy, democratic processes and institutions which reflect national circumstances, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, just and honest government, and fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed, or political belief".
It is not only the South African elections which make this debate timely. For too long, attitudes in this country towards the Commonwealth—the noble Viscount referred to it as its public image—have been adversely affected by three misconceptions. The first has been to see the Commonwealth merely as an attempt to freeze Britain's past relationships with our former dominions and dependent territories rather than as a forward-looking and pragmatic association of friends, with a common language and a common heritage but with a wide and rich diversity of ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
The second misconception, sadly encouraged by ministerial experience, was that many had come to regard Commonwealth heads of government meetings as little more than an opportunity for others to lecture the British Government on sanctions against Rhodesia and, later, South Africa. As of today, that should happily be a thing of the past. The third was that Britain's membership of the Commonwealth was in some way in contradiction to, or in competition with, membership of the European Union or the Atlantic Alliance. This, in my view, largely arose from a misunderstanding of the Commonwealth's role. I firmly believe that we can, and should, revive our commitment to the Commonwealth, without in any way derogating from our position in Europe or as good NATO allies.
The Commonwealth no longer monopolises, if it ever did, the attention of any of its members. But a common history, and a shared set of values cart keep a family together, even if that family meets only irregularly. I believe that the Commonwealth is that sort of family,

693
under the same head of the family in Her Majesty the Queen, and that the Commonwealth, in all its guises and entities, is the stronger for it.
Let us not underestimate the value—for all members of the Commonwealth—of maintaining and developing the whole nexus of Commonwealth bodies and associations, governmental, non-governmental and parliamentary, in helping each other through our various social, political, ethnic and economic difficulties; and, perhaps most importantly, in broadening our outlook on the world. I hope that today's debate will do something to correct the misconceptions which have, I believe, weakened those family links in recent years.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am deeply honoured to have the privilege of congratulating the noble Lord on his maiden speech which, if I may say so, was really brilliant. The noble Lord compared himself to a new boy. Well, of course, he is a new boy; but he is a new boy who not only has great ability, but one who also has plenty of knowledge. I hope that he will give us the opportunity to listen to him very often. I am sure that we shall all do so with great pleasure and that we shall derive great benefit from it.
I, too, must thank the noble Viscount for giving us the opportunity to discuss the Commonwealth. I agree with what has already been said; namely, that it is particularly important that we should be discussing the Commonwealth today when the people of South Africa are voting in their first truly democratic election. The Commonwealth has played its part in bringing that about. It is not merely that it is monitoring the election: it played a major part in the stages that preceded it. I especially remember the Eminent Persons' Group and other activities within the Commonwealth which have been instrumental in making today possible. Of course, it is a great joy to all of us.
We hope that the election is a prelude to South Africa's return to the Commonwealth which it left in 1961, following criticism of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference as regards its racialist and political philosophy. However, South Africa will not be the first country to return to the Commonwealth. If noble Lords remember, Pakistan once left the Commonwealth and then later returned. Therefore, South Africa must not feel that there will be any difficulty in returning; indeed, it will not be the first Commonwealth country to do so.
As has been said before, since the inception of the Commonwealth in 1963, the association has been viewed, and has viewed itself, as a voluntary body comprised of independent sovereign states each responsible for its own policies, but with consultation and co-operation in their common interests and in the promotion of greater international understanding. That is very much the essence of the Commonwealth.
Over the years, Commonwealth members have shared many experiences—indeed, many of them were former colleagues —which range from de-colonisation, national and individual liberty, democracy, racial equality to the objectives of minimising poverty and
694
maximising international co-operation. I believe that members of the Commonwealth share all those interests.
Although the Commonwealth developed from the Empire, it is a new concept. As Her Majesty the Queen once said, it is built on friendship, loyalty and the desire for freedom and peace. The Harare Summit has already been referred to by previous speakers, so I shall not dwell on it. However, it was a most important declaration. It underlined the principles that were already stated in the 1971 Singapore Declaration.
More recently, the Cyprus Communiqué dealt with trade. That, too, was of the utmost importance because bridging the gap between the developed and the developing countries is one of the roles that the Commonwealth needs to play. It may well be said that the Commonwealth has those objectives, but that one is not so sure whether it can achieve them. I am not one of those who share that view. I believe that the Commonwealth is well placed to influence such matters in the world.
The Commonwealth consists of large and small nations, both rich and poor, and it is represented in every regional economic and political grouping. Two of the G7 countries—namely, the United Kingdom and Canada—are members of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is represented in Europe by the United Kingdom and it is represented in the North Atlantic free-trade area by Canada. It is represented in the Organisation of American States by several countries in that region and it is represented in the Organisation of African Unity by many countries in the area. It is also represented in the Association of South East Asian Nations. Indeed, it is well represented in all groupings. Moreover, although Britain is a permanent member of the Security Council it will be found that, nearly always, one of the other 14 members is also a member of the Commonwealth. Therefore, that gives the Commonwealth an opportunity to play a role in every discussion and in every activity that takes place around the globe.
I should like to pay tribute to Canada. I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me; but coming as I do from the Caribbean, I know about the part that Canada plays in helping countries in that area. One of the reasons why I felt like making such a tribute was that I suddenly discovered the part that Canada has played in helping Botswana to develop its mining industry. That is the sort of role that I believe the developed countries of the Commonwealth can play. So far as concerns the Caribbean, Canada has had trade agreements with those states which allow one-way free trading where certain Caribbean products remain free of duty. Now that Canada is part of the North Atlantic free-trade area, the gradual removal of tariffs on Caribbean goods over the next few years will certainly be of great value to those countries.
I know that the United Kingdom also helps the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the European Community through the Lomé Convention. However, I have a little criticism to make about Britain. Whenever the Lomé agreement is being discussed, I find that it is Britain which fights for the lowest level of the

695
Lomé development fund. Therefore, although Britain does fight for the least developed countries in the Commonwealth in Lomé, it is always dragging its feet about the extent to which it really helps.
I note the noble Viscount mentioned the part the Commonwealth is playing in encouraging democratic governments around the globe. I feel that I am more critical then he because I believe we ought in fact to be stronger in our condemnation of dictatorships within the Commonwealth. One of the principles of the Commonwealth is democracy. The democratic ethos is very much one of our principles and we should not tolerate non-democratic governments within the Commonwealth. We should in fact be indicating as firmly as possible our non-approval of these dictators. If I am to criticise our Commonwealth leaders, I want to say that they should be doing much more in that particular field.
If South Africa is to succeed—and we all pray that it will —then of course it must demonstrate that people of different races and different cultures can live together in equality and friendship. That is the biggest problem confronting the world today. I also want to say to your Lordships that we in this country also have an opportunity of showing how this can be done and done successfully, and that by doing it here successfully we will be aiding other countries like South Africa to do likewise. I really do hope that that is one of the resolves that we will make here.
My speaking time is up and I conclude by saying that I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to tell us that the Government have the Commonwealth in the forefront of their thinking and that the Government envisage a strong, effective and influential Commonwealth and are determined to play their full part in making sure that that is so.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, it has been 15 years since I first took my seat in your Lordships' House. I do hope that your Lordships will consider that this, my maiden speech, was worth the wait. For the past few months I have attended regularly and I have to admit that at times I have felt rather like a bullock; that is to say, a beast that can be overweight, has a tendency to be inquisitive but is in fact somewhat incapacitated.
My recent experience of this House has made me realise that the excellent reputation of the debates and speeches in your Lordships' House is well founded. This, coupled with the surroundings, has led many a maiden speaker to use the word "trepidation" in describing their feelings. I think that I would describe mine in slightly stronger terms. I understand it is the custom of the House to thank the noble Lord who proposes the debate and I do this in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for introducing this very topical subject.
It has been 63 years since the birth and inception of the Commonwealth from the Statute of Westminster in 1931, which gave legal status to the independence of former colonies. From an initial handful of countries, there are now 50 members, with the possibility of a further two joining in the near future. The point I wish
696
to make is that the Commonwealth is still growing and a future does exist for this loose collection of countries originally bound together by a common colonial history.
I think that in many cases people do not comprehend the breadth and size of the Commonwealth. The population total is 1.5 billion, close to a quarter of the world's population. It is made up of many different races, religions and cultures from many varied geographical regions. Another fact that tends to be overlooked is the influence of the Commonwealth. Member countries belong to numerous worldwide organisations such as the UN Security Council and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I could add to that list but a number have already been mentioned before, but what I intend to show is that the spheres of interest are worldwide. In January 1971 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Singapore a Declaration of Commonwealth Principles was made. This was the beginning of the organisation as we know it today. This declaration was a statement of core beliefs which were meant to be calls for action with certain guidelines. These help to define the future role of the Commonwealth.
Since 1971 there have been biennial meetings of the CHOG at which further declarations have been made. Many of these have concentrated on the existence of racism and in particular the apartheid system that was found in South Africa. This started with the Gleneagles Agreement, with additional declarations on the same subject made in Lusaka, Nassau, Ottawa, Kuala Lumpur and Harare. It culminated with the Commonwealth lifting all remaining trade, investment and financial sanctions against South Africa in September 1993 following the establishment of a transitional executive council. I feel that the Commonwealth must take a considerable amount of credit for the first fully democratic elections being held today in South Africa. In addition, the Commonwealth Observer Mission has been operating in South Africa for the past two years with its valuable expertise in the areas of community relations, diplomacy, politics, law enforcement and legal and judicial matters. The Commonwealth has also supplied an observer group to help oversee the election numbering 120 from 30 different countries.
Where to now? For two decades the Commonwealth has concentrated in the main on ridding South Africa of the apartheid system. Of course racism still exists both inside and outside the Commonwealth and it must be vehemently resisted. But the removal of apartheid makes it possible for the focus of concentration to shift.
There is, for example, the continuing poverty in developing countries. There should be concentration upon improved rural policies and programmes as well as specific poverty alleviation measures. So often action takes place only after we see the headlines in the newspapers or after the television footage is shown on the nine o'clock news. Only then are nations shocked or shamed into action. I believe that the Commonwealth is supremely positioned to co-ordinate action quickly and effectively.
The environment is another area in which it has a role to play, particularly with reference to sustainable

697
development. Protection must be given to the rain forests. This is easy enough to say from here, but where timber is the main currency earning export it puts immense pressure on the governments of the countries concerned.
The Commonwealth can and does have a policy relating to international crime such as money laundering and drug trafficking. But more action is needed at the root of the problem. Alternative crops are required in those countries where drug production is the main form of agriculture. So effort must be put into giving rural populations alternative sources of income.
These are only a few of the areas where the Commonwealth can expand its many roles and these can be carried out through the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. The fund gives help in foreign debt management, creates export-marketing systems, helps in the rehabilitation of industries and also provides training, consultancy and expertise. In the year 1991–92, it had a budget of £22.6 million, with the United Kingdom being the second largest contributor after Canada. In 1992–9–93 our contribution went up to £7.5 million, but on top of that there were 205 training places and 23 long-term experts.
In some member countries republicanism is being considered, but this is no bar to membership. In Australia the Prime Minister, Paul Keating, has stated that Australia's path lies towards more involvement in regional trade and economic groupings and less towards the Commonwealth, but he agrees that Australia will give full and active support to the Commonwealth programmes in every respect.
The Commonwealth has contributed to one of the most important events in recent times, the death of apartheid. It still has many important roles to play. Now is the time for it to look forward towards the future and redefine its role, making full use of its vast bank of enthusiasm and expertise.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, it falls to my good fortune to be the one to congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech and on having broken a silence of 15 years. We were all very glad to hear it broken and hope that we shall hear much more of him during the next 15 years and thereafter.
I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on having instituted this debate on the role and future of the Commonwealth because that is a matter which is given insufficient consideration. Normally we hear about the Commonwealth only when there is a row going on among its members or when they are attacking us. When we do hear about it we are inclined to hear more about the row than the friendliness and good sense with which it is normally settled.
I fear that nowadays many people are a little bored with the Commonwealth. They are inclined to discount its value for the present and the future, even if they recognise that in the past it has had a valuable part to play.
698
I should like to begin by saying something about the past. The Commonwealth began in 1931 as a small group of what might be termed the white dominions —Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada, to which was added Rhodesia as a kind of honorary membership, largely because everyone was so fond of Godfrey Huggins. Now it has developed into the present large, multi-racial, multi-coloured group of 50 independent countries which were all once part of the British Empire. As each territory has been given its independence it has applied for membership of the Commonwealth club. With the exception of South Africa, all are still members. Pakistan has been in and out of membership. It is greatly to be hoped that South Africa, under its new multi-racial government, will reapply for membership and once more become a respected member of the Commonwealth.
Whatever anyone may think about the future role of the Commonwealth, I believe that all will acknowledge that its development and existence represent the most civilised method yet devised in the long course of history for dismembering an empire. I believe that history will look upon the metamorphosis of empire into commonwealth as a product of the British genius not greatly inferior to the development of parliamentary government.
What is the value of the Commonwealth today, and what role has it in the future? Winston Churchill once described Ramsay Macdonald as a "boneless wonder". Many people might consider it not unreasonable so to describe the Commonwealth. It has no common policy, political or economic. It has no homogeneity. It is multi-racial, multi-coloured and multi-religious, and it has no common territorial boundaries, being scattered across the oceans and the continents. There is no parliament which controls its destiny and, to say the least, some of its members are more democratic in their forms of government than others.
It is boneless all right, but I believe that it is also a wonder, and not just because of its lack of a cohesive structure. It is a wonder because these 50 independent countries, held together only by a shared history and a common use of the English language, have decided that the association is of real value and worth continuing.
Noble Lords who have already spoken have described in some detail what the Commonwealth provides for its members, and I shall certainly not repeat what they have said. They have made the case very clearly that the Commonwealth has a very real value, particularly for the smaller members and those new to independence. It must be a great comfort for a small country which has just become independent to feel that it belongs to this great association. It must be a great source of comfort and encouragement for the leaders of the countries to meet every other year at Commonwealth heads of government meetings, those great get-togethers for the members of the club known as "CHOGMs".
We are now so preoccupied with Europe that the Commonwealth may appear an irrelevancy, but I am sure that it is a very different matter for the small countries. For them the Commonwealth is of real value. I cannot avoid the reflection that had Burma been able

699
to become a member of the Commonwealth on gaining independence, that country would be far less isolated than it is today, and, I suspect, in much better shape than I believe it to be. Unfortunately, when Burma became independent the inspired decision to allow India to remain in the Commonwealth in spite of becoming a republic had not been taken.
It was when India became a member of the Commonwealth, although also becoming a republic, that the position of Head of the Commonwealth was first invented. Having had the honour to serve in the private secretary's office of the Head of the Commonwealth for nearly 30 years, I hope that your Lordships will consider it in order if I say something about the way the Queen has performed as Head of the Commonwealth and the significance this has had for the Commonwealth.
It is worth noting that the Queen is almost certainly the longest serving servant of the Commonwealth, if I may so describe her. She has served the Commonwealth for 42 years. Her presence at the CHOGMs, where she receives each individual head of government for an audience of 20 minutes or so, and the fact that she entertains them all, has in my opinion added great significance to the meetings and to the atmosphere of family friendship which is generated at them. I believe that it is of some significance that the one really bad-tempered CHOGM—the one which was held in Singapore in the early 1970s—is the only CHOGM which the Queen has not attended.
I am certain that the service given to the association by the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth has had a profound effect upon its development. I do not believe that without her it would have held together in the remarkable way it has, nor do I believe it would be what I am sure it is, a real source of good in the world.
5.18 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the speech that he has made to us today. In relation to his final point, I cannot refer to such an exalted person as he mentioned. I believe that the Commonwealth is a reflection of the strength of our character. In that connection, in the coming together of the two sides in South Africa, character has been the making of the agreement which they have now reached. That is of enormous importance. We have something to give and we should not be ashamed of making it available.
I have found the debate this evening extremely stimulating. I was worried about what would happen. I was frightened that those holding high appointments and with command over assets which they could make available would not make them available as was hoped. I believe that much could be done by help from our Government and elsewhere.
I wish to record my experience when in the Royal Air Force in the war. I was in 36 Group. We trained people who came from outside this island. We trained them to be useful as pilots. Between 1,000 and 1,500 people were involved. When the great D-Day took place, those people landed with their small air boats somewhere on the edge of France. They came from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, India, South America and, of
700
course, Canada in large numbers. They wanted to work with us and were willing to do so. I am afraid that some of them undoubtedly lost their lives in so doing. But they were men of great character. They came willingly and happily to fulfil the role of helping us.
Why should such people come from halfway around the equator to help us? They did so and we should express our thanks to them for so doing. I believe that we have sufficient leadership to encourage other people to lead the ranks, perhaps in politics. I must confess that I was frightened that the Government of this country would not do enough to help Canada and other places. We must ask and press them to do so. If the Government do not help the Commonwealth countries, they may collapse. If they collapse, we may collapse, so perhaps I am being a little selfish—as everyone in this world tends to be. With that thought in mind. I sit down.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, on their maiden speeches. We look forward very much to their continued contributions to our deliberations. If the noble Earl will allow me to say so, I am particularly glad to welcome to this House my noble friend and ancient colleague—I use the term "ancient" in the French sense—Lord Wright of Richmond. He is a welcome addition to the diplomatic firepower in your Lordships' House. I am glad to note that the carrying power of his voice has not diminished since we shared an office together in 10 Downing Street 20 years ago.
My experience of the Commonwealth, like his, has largely been at governmental level, from inside the Government. I attended seven CHOGMs between 1971 and 1991. Those have not been easy years for the Commonwealth. At times there must have been many of us who wondered whether there was any useful role for the Commonwealth to play in the world and whether it had any future. I believe that the answers to both those questions can now be more positive than at any time within my memory.
The first point is that by the Harare CHOGM of 1991, the first generation of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, many of whom had brought their countries through from being colonies to independent status, had in various ways left government and the new, second generation of leaders are men and women who are less concerned with the historical struggle for independence from Britain than with the present problems and pressures of governing and managing the economy of a developing country. In that situation, Britain is no longer suspected as the potential enemy but seen as a potential source of friendship and assistance.
That was perhaps the second great change over the period. Britain increasingly came to be seen not as the former colonial power but as another member of 'the Commonwealth, admittedly one of the larger ones., whose membership of the Security Council and of other international organisations enabled her to represent the needs and aspirations of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth countries in those organisations.

701
Of course, the third great change affecting the Commonwealth —it is especially relevant as we meet today—has been the ending of apartheid in South Africa. In one way or another, to a greater or lesser extent, issues surrounding apartheid dominated and divided the Commonwealth from 1971 to 1987 or 1989. There was indeed no fundamental difference of principle: the politics and practice of apartheid were abhorred no less by the British Government than by the governments of other Commonwealth countries. But there were profound and often acrimonious differences on the ways in which and the extent to which other countries should seek by their actions to bring pressure to bear on the South African Government to end apartheid. In those differences, the British Government too often found themselves in a very small minority —and sometimes seemed to revel in the fact.
By the time of the Harare Conference, all that had changed. The issue was no longer whether we should impose or intensify sanctions on South Africa: it was how soon the sanctions already in place should be lifted, and how the Commonwealth and its members could best assist the development of multi-racial democracy in South Africa.
In that connection I should like to join those who have paid tribute to the contribution which is made by the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku. His deep commitment, and the skill of his quiet and unflamboyant diplomacy, have earned him the trust and confidence of all those involved, and have enabled him to ensure that the Commonwealth has been positively and actively contributing in a number of ways to the progress that has been achieved in South Africa.
The fourth great change that has affected the Commonwealth, as it has affected every aspect of international affairs, is the ending of the cold war. So long as the cold war lasted, the Commonwealth seemed inevitably somewhat peripheral to the main issues of East-West relations. In the new order following the end of the cold war, full as it is of regional uncertainties and disagreements, the capacity of the Commonwealth to be a unifying force becomes easier to see.
It is an extraordinary institution. When the Heads of Government meet, there are representatives of a quarter of the world's population—50 countries sitting around a table together, able to communicate directly with each other, without the mediation of interpreters, coming from a great diversity of regions and countries, each with his or her own national culture but all sharing a common culture derived from their association with this country.
The Commonwealth has no written constitution or charter. It has been endowed by its members with no formal powers. Its decisions and conclusions are arrived at by consensus. The capacity of the Secretary-General for action derives partly from mandates laid upon him by Heads of Government and other ministerial meetings, partly from the willingness of member countries to provide the resources it needs and partly, and especially, from the confidence which member governments place in him.
702
But the very flexibility and informality of those arrangements enables the Commonwealth to adapt more easily to changing needs and circumstances. In the new and so far confused post-cold war world order, there is increasing value and importance in an international body which is not fettered by formal documents but is able to respond flexibly; in a body whose members come from the developed and the developing countries and from all five continents of the world.
All are independent sovereign states, each with their own national cultures, interests and regional groupings. But when they come together, for instance at a CHOGM, one is conscious not only of their diversity but also of what unites them, in particular the English language in which they can converse directly with each other, the elements of common culture which they have inherited from the past, in many cases the practices and precedents of the common law, and often shared educational links.
The Commonwealth has long been, and I hope long will continue to be, an important channel for economic aid and support from the developed countries to the Commonwealth's developing members. But now with the divisive issue of apartheid behind it, the Commonwealth is able to turn its attention to principles and causes to which it has been committed, as we were reminded earlier, for over 20 years and which have resonances across the world. I refer in particular to the encouragement of democratic values and institutions in member countries, the strengthening of good governance, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, the principles and practices of equal opportunities, irrespective of differences of racial origin or gender, and improvements in educational and health opportunities. The Commonwealth renewed its commitment to those values and principles in the Harare Declaration of 1991, in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, said, I had some small part to play. It is possible for the Commonwealth to be increasingly active in these areas without excessive calls for increased resources. The Secretary-General has been reviewing and modifying the organisation of the secretariat in order to strengthen its ability to respond to the calls upon it.
If there is one thing that I particularly urge upon the British Government, it is that they should do everything in their powers to increase and strengthen the educational links that should bind the members of the Commonwealth. On a recent visit to this country, the Prime Minister of Singapore reminded us that, unlike previous generations of leaders in Singapore, he and his contemporaries had received their higher education in the United States and not in this country. That is a tendency which we should seek to reverse if we care about the future of the Commonwealth.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the Commonwealth Institute. Eighteen months ago the Government invited me to undertake a review of the Commonwealth Institute. I was impressed to find that it does not live in the past but lives in the present and looks forward to the future. It is housed in Kensington in a building of considerable architectural merit, but the building is liable to fall down. It needs many millions to be spent on restoration work. The institute has been

703
largely dependent on public funds, but the public funds available to it—about £3 million a year—enable it to conduct only a restricted pattern of activity and oblige it to raise funds from other sources. The grant makes no contribution to the funds required for the restoration of the building.
The institute does good and valuable work. I am sorry that the Government have felt obliged to give notice of a decision to discontinue public funding in two years' time, in March 1996. The institute has responded to the challenge with spirit, by developing a new vision and a new strategy which will enable it to continue to play a useful and imaginative part in promoting the significance of the Commonwealth, not least through a newly developed education programme.
The value of its work and the sturdiness and imaginativeness of its response to the proposed withdrawal of public funding deserve your Lordships' consideration and support. I hope that the House will join me in urging the Government to consider very sympathetically the institute's case for the financial and other support which it will need if it is to be able to implement its strategy and secure its long-term future.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, it is usually in keeping to make some reference to the previous speaker and I do so with pleasure, congratulating him on the constructive way in which he spoke. However, that has not always been the case this evening with some speeches. I was somewhat upset when the comment was made: "What can we get out of the Commonwealth if it gives nothing to us?" I also wondered when we heard the opening speech in the debate; I suspect some of the comments dealt with the Secretary-General to the Commonwealth and representations made to him by some of our Commonwealth states overseas. I am not in a position to comment on that and it seems to me difficult for anyone to do so in the circumstances.
It is difficult to keep one's speech on the role and future of the Commonwealth within reasonable bounds because it is a tremendous theme to debate and consider. As regards my experience, I was involved in giving effect for 30 years overseas to the policies of His Majesty's Government in a Commonwealth country—Malaysia. I got the impression that the policies were pretty good and that they were well received by people out there. The policies were constructive and easy to follow and if any complaint was made it was dealt with quickly. When there was trouble in the formation and re-introduction of the rubber industry after the slump, the Government—I think that a Labour Government was in power at the time—sent out people from this country, union leaders, to contact the people who were complaining. That was accepted. It was constructive and showed that in those days we were dispassionate and wanted quickly to get to the bottom of difficulties.
I was 22 years old when I left these shores to take up an appointment in the British Colonial Service in Malaysia. My service was in that country, which was known at the time as the Federated Malay States, and it was one of the Free Associations of Sovereign States within the British Commonwealth of Nations;
704
comprising Great Britain and a number of its former dependencies who chose to maintain ties of friendship and to practise co-operation with Britain. It has not been mentioned sufficiently tonight that that country acknowledged the British monarch as the symbolic head of the association for the period from 1931 to 1946. A previous speaker mentioned that when India became a republic and chose to remain within the Commonwealth, the phrase "Head of the Commonwealth" was substituted for "Emperor of India" in the royal title of Queen Elizabeth II. That WETS in 1953.
I have covered those points because feel it necessary to set out the constitution applicable to Her Majesty the Queen on the Throne today in relation to the style followed by her father and grandfather in earlier years. That constitution has been in force ever since, for the whole of that period. At that time, various colonies were evolving from states subordinate to the United Kingdom into an association of equal partners. In that respect I should like to comment on life in the Commonwealth as it evolved and as it appeared to me and to mention my views on the constitutional situation. I wish to state that I consider it necessary to maintain royalty and the services it gives to the nation and the Commonwealth. I cannot see that there is any other constitution or system capable of rendering the service it gives and has given to the nation and the Commonwealth I shall give my reasons in greater force later on.
I should like to refer in this connection to a broadcast made by Her Majesty's grandfather, when I was 12,000 miles away from this country, in the early days of overseas broadcasting. I was in the Federated Malay States, with others, on that great day, waiting to hear a speech by King George V to his empire. First, we were able to hear an account of the cheering of the British crowds on the King's drive from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Hall. Having heard the King as he spoke, people with me were of the opinion that, from the effect, he seemed near to them, very human. He spoke about the First World War. He seemed very tired at the approaching end of a long reign and he spoke of the war's terrible casualties. The reaction was indicative to me of what the people felt, listening to what the King had said. One of them jumped up and said: "Tuan, having heard the King speak has made me feel I must do something better with my own life".
Let us look at that. All the time from those early years, great value was given in the broadcasts of the BBC to the cohesion of Britain with the Commonwealth states which brought Britain and those countries ever closer to one another. The distance was shrinking by the speed of air travel, as well as the BBC's efforts in letting people overseas know what was happening in England.
Secondly, I remember the great air flights that took place between this country and Australia. Notification was given by wireless or telephone (I do not know which) of the time and dates when certain planes would land in a certain area to refuel. That caused great excitement to people who lived overseas, and who admired those people for the risks that they were taking. But not only that; the flights again demonstrated that through air power, development and production, the

705
Empire, or the Commonwealth, was drawing nearer and nearer through a reduction in the time of travel between one country and another. I remember (I hope that I am right) that the people who carried out those flights were Jean Batten, Amelia Earhart, Cobham, and Amy Johnson. I do not know whether any of them is alive today, but they were household names at the time. It would be quite impossible to overlook the excitement that the air race to Australia caused. Great service was given by that demonstration of the way in which distance was "being reduced" at that time.
Earlier still in that period of air development, two British pilots succeeded in flying across the Atlantic from America and landing in Ireland. They were John Alcock and Arthur Whitten-Brown. Both pilots were knighted by the Queen for their achievement.
Another person who captured the admiration at that time, about whom we read in the British newspapers, was the American, Charles Lindbergh. He flew solo from America to France—and flying solo was considered a very brave thing to do in that particular instance.
I cannot cover everything in this debate and I shall make no attempt to do so. But I want to mention the attack by the Japanese on Singapore in 1942 and what happened to the people there and the civil servants after that attack. On a certain day instructions were given that the High Commissioner and the Governor of Singapore were to meet with all the white Europeans and people serving in that country, together with other people. They were to assemble and be led on foot by the Governor, Sir Sharton Thomas, marching the nine miles from that city to Changi gaol. It was the intention on that day that we should see many hundreds of Singapore citizens lining the streets. The reason that the Japanese—or our conquerors, whatever one likes to call them—did that was to cause a loss of face to the Europeans. The Japanese also realised, given what the Government of Britain had been to their territories overseas —incidentally there were 1,000 civil servants on that walk —that if we were allowed loose during the Japanese occupation we would be a danger to the way that they governed. The Japanese had not come there to enjoy themselves; they had come there to—
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I remind my noble friend that this is a timed debate. Perhaps he will draw his contribution to a conclusion.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I regret that I have lost time on this matter by diverging. I should just like to mention our constitution. The broadcasts that reached Singapore from Britain on our constitution—that is, on royalty, our democracy, and so on—were used when people were dying in the jail. The daily reports that we received from the BBC kept people alive who would otherwise have died. That observation is justified this evening. I cannot elaborate any further and give noble Lords the explanation as it would not be fair for me to do so.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on initiating this debate, I should also like briefly to contribute an experience from the rather more recent past. It is one that I can never forget, and I hope that it will be of some interest in this debate. I shall never forget the experience, stretching over several years, of living and working in an African Commonwealth country during the nightmare years immediately following that country's transition to independence. I refer to Uganda's early years after gaining its independence in the early 1960s, during Dr. Obote's first administration, and then the years of Amin's reign of terror.
It was precisely through living through those years that those of us who were there were able to see at close range the various political, legal and cultural norms and values that were inherited from Uganda's experience, first as a British protectorate and then as a Commonwealth member. We were able to witness during those years that inheritance coming under the most intense pressure.
In particular, and most vividly, as Members of this House will remember, we saw the whole tradition of freedom and security for individuals under the rule of law being eroded by General Amin's terrifying attitudes of greed, violence and contempt for those human rights and liberties which Uganda's past experience had indicated should be preserved. I remember, for example, the executions that regularly went on in the police barracks just below the theological seminary where it was my privilege to teach.
On another occasion I remember a small group of African and European children who were travelling to school by car being ambushed by Amin's thugs. They were hurled into the road at gunpoint and the vehicle was stolen. There was nothing that could be done to prevent it.
A particular incident remains in my mind. A visiting British trade official was suddenly seized—again by Amin's henchmen—while eating his breakfast in a Kampala hotel. Her Majesty's Government responded swiftly by submitting a writ of habeas corpus to the Ugandan high court. That placed the Ugandan chief justice of that time in a position both of grave judicial responsibility and of radical personal danger. Yet, as Members of this House may recall, that chief justice, who had spent a number of years here in England practising the disciplines and standards of English law —and who, I might add, would often pay tribute to the inheritance that he learnt here—made arrangements swiftly to hear the case. He released the British trade official, who I am glad to say is now safe in this country. The chief justice was never seen again and is buried anonymously in some unknown banana garden near Kampala.
The point of this example lies in its sequel. A few days later, a not inconsiderable group of younger students asked to see me. They were concerned to let me know that the chief justice's "costly stand", as they said, would never be wasted or forgotten. Rather, they were

707
sure that their generation would continue the struggle for justice and the rule of law in forging their country's future. That is not nostalgic, anecdotal memory. It is rather to suggest that those facts in the history of the Commonwealth have a present, living force. Like other noble Lords, I could add other examples from the educational record of the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and other noble Lords emphasised that aspect. Our own Anglican Archbishop of Uganda died, probably under the hands of Amin himself, for a similar form of resistance.
My point is that the role and future of such a Commonwealth country are still in the melting pot. They are still being forged. On a recent visit to Uganda, I had the privilege of meeting a few members of the Ugandan Cabinet and the legal commission, which is presently travelling throughout that country and struggling to gain understanding and assent for a new democratic constitution. In that struggle the experience and support of the Commonwealth is a not unimportant factor. In fact, without the help of the neighbouring country of Tanzania, Uganda would not be in its present slate of being on the way to greater well-being and stability.
The Speaker of the Canadian Parliament once used a splendid image of the Commonwealth, with which I should like to conclude. He said that when geese migrate, they fly in formation and help each other. Each goose, as it flaps its wings, creates an uplift for the goose that follows. All the geese, as they make their individual contribution, give the whole flock a 70 per cent. greater flying range than would be the case if each goose had to fly alone. Furthermore, when a goose begins to lag behind or gets out of formation, the others honk it back into position.
I hope that your Lordships' House will show no sign of lagging behind in enthusiasm for supporting the noble Viscount's Motion. Rather, let us fly together in a flock and go farther in this uncertain and turbulent world.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, at lunchtime today I was asked by an interviewer from Wales Radio whether any discussion of the Commonwealth could be anything more than an exercise in nostalgia. In reply, I made many of the points which noble Lords have presented tonight about the current activities and prospects of the Commonwealth. I concluded by saying that at any rate there was quite enough in the Commonwealth for the House of Lords to have a very good debate for a full five hours. That statement has already been borne out, thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the two maiden speakers in particular.
Even so, there have been one or two items in the list of elements that bind the Commonwealth together which have been omitted; for instance, cricket or—until we heard the very moving speech from the right reverend Prelate—the law. That was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster; but it seems to me that one ought not to underplay the importance which the British system of common law has had in forming the attitude toward law in most Commonwealth
708
countries. Now of course appeals to the Privy Council are fairly rare and only a few countries preserve that practice. Also, there are few countries now in which British lawyers may be heard before their courts. But I still feel that is a very important additional element.
My own experience has been in the academic sphere, a field which several noble Lords have mentioned. I began studying the Commonwealth in any depth some 30 years ago. When preparing some lectures in the University of Delhi I remember looking out of a window and being distracted by the gorgeous sari clad female students of that institution; then, writing the lectures in Canberra, and being equally distracted by the even more colourful parrots around the campus; and finally, delivering the lectures in snowbound Montreal—all within a matter of weeks. The Commonwealth is a very varied place.
When one tries to forecast what is likely to happen, it is useful to remember that the process of change has been constant. Several noble Lords indicated that there is a kind of birthdate for the Commonwealth, which is either the Statute of Westminster or some other, similar fixed point. In fact, the embryonic idea of an association of self-governing countries goes back to the time when the empire was still at its greatest; namely, before the first world war. When I wrote my book, The Dream of Commonwealth, I was thinking of the attitude taken in the inter-war years to the possibility that there could be a free association of self-governing countries. At first, as one noble Lord pointed out, it was envisaged as the original dominions plus Rhodesia, to which other countries which were still dependencies could be added as they achieved measures of self-government.
I suppose that the question is why, after the war, although the association remained, much of the substance—which from the military point of view had been important during the war—disappeared and, from the economic point of view, became much less significant. Nonetheless, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, slightly underestimated the importance of some Commonwealth trade and its importance even today.
I have no doubt that the turning point was our decision to seek association with the European Communities. Much as I appreciated, as I am sure did all noble Lords, the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, I cannot agree with him. More and more I believe that there is a fundamental inconsistency between the idea of the Commonwealth and our membership of a supranational organisation. In its nature, the Commonwealth is an association of independent, sovereign states. The objective of the European Community, which we are now told to call the European Union, is to subordinate Britain into becoming simply a unit in a federal system. I cannot see why the other countries of the Commonwealth, which have preserved and attach great importance to their independence, should be prepared to regard as an equal a country which has no more constitutional status than that of, let us say, an American state or a Canadian province. Whether or not the economic arguments—and perhaps to some extent the defence arguments—for making that choice were inescapable at the time will be

709
for future historians to decide. Like many people, I thought we were right; I am now coming round gradually to the view that we were probably wrong.
I believe that the increasing interest in the Commonwealth, of which this debate is an example, is not only because it has been relieved—as we were reminded constantly in the course of the debate—of the burden which the South African issue introduced into Commonwealth affairs over some 20 years, but also because of the growing questioning regarding the way in which "Europe" is now going. So there are new possibilities before us. We may not be able fully to find a solution. But it is indicative that when the Commonwealth countries last met in Cyprus, among other things they declared their determination that the GATT agreement should be ratified—that is to say, they expressed themselves collectively in favour of a world trading system and to some extent by implication repudiated the view that regional blocs would now come to dominate everything. It is because the Commonwealth is a world system of ideas in education and in law as well as in trade that those like myself, who are on record as having despaired of the Commonwealth a quarter of a century ago, now find a debate like today's of great interest and importance.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is always fascinating to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and I should like to join with others in thanking my noble friend Lord Waverley for bringing forward this subject for debate. Also, I associate myself with those others who congratulated the two maiden speakers who contributed so well this afternoon.
Forty years ago—I noted that it is fashionable today in your Lordships' House to turn to the past—when I was preparing for a promotion examination the Royal Air Force sent me to Birmingham University for a week, where I and fellow officers were given a crash course to help prepare us for the current international affairs paper of the exam. I am afraid the details of the week are now lodged only in my subconscious, well beyond recall. But our excellent professor gave us one most useful tip. He said that when answering or discussing questions about foreign policy and international affairs we would do well to marshal our arguments under three separate headings: political, economic and military. I passed my exam, so I assume that it was good advice. Today I thought that I would make just one point about the Commonwealth under each of my professor's three headings.
With such talent and experience in your Lordships' House I have heard and confidently expect to hear more interesting political issues raised. The point that I wish to comment on may even lie beyond, and certainly lies above, the normal run of political comment. I refer to the position of the Monarch as Head of the Commonwealth. It is a remarkable feat, as my noble friend Lord Charteris so cogently pointed out with such unique authority, that that arrangement has continued
710
over many years when so much else in the world has been changing, not least the political make-up of the nations of the Commonwealth.
It is certainly debatable whether we could still have the Commonwealth if we did not have the Monarchy. Can anyone conceive that the Head of the Commonwealth might become some sort of rotating or even elected position? Like so many of our historic institutions, it is easier and probably better to leave matters as they are than to try to find a new arrangement. All who value the Commonwealth ideal have much to thank Her Majesty for in her leadership and commitment over the years. Were some future Monarch ever to lose the sureness of touch or the respect of the citizens of the Commonwealth, or worse, were we ever to become a republic, I fear that the binding mortar of the Head of the Commonwealth would soon crumble and the Commonwealth itself could fall away. It could fall away because so much else has happened since the days of empire and old dominions beyond the seas to weaken the original ties. Let me choose just one economic and one military point to illustrate that.
Commonwealth preference going back to the old empire days, but kept alive for some years thereafter, is now relegated to the history books. We have cast our lot with Europe and GATT, too, has its influence on our trading patterns. Surely, the pessimists were forecasting, such a betrayal of old trading patterns, such a selfish and narrow perception of our national economic self-interest, would deal a death blow to the Commonwealth. But it has not killed it off. Perhaps the outcome of such profound economic change has yet to emerge. So far it has not and the omens are not all bad.
But if economic self-interest is acceptable, what of our security needs? Twice this century Commonwealth countries sent their finest men and women to fight to save this country from invasion and defeat. Many lost their lives or were gravely wounded in those wars. Would the Commonwealth turn out again with such a demonstration of support and loyalty if we were ever to find ourselves in mortal danger once more? We seem to have judged the answer to that in no uncertain way. No longer do we look to our old dominion and other Commonwealth nations to strengthen our resources. We have cast our lot with NATO, with the WEU and with our European neighbours. Sound arguments abound for making allowances for such economic and military co-operation with former European enemies, so that it is inconceivable for any of those former adversaries, and now allies, to turn against us.
We have made sure that our concentration in Europe is not misunderstood or overlooked around the Commonwealth. Virtually all our military presence—our garrisons and overseas bases—have been given up. What confidence has any Commonwealth country that the United Kingdom would come to its aid if threatened? They too have drawn their conclusions.
Of course, some will argue that the world security situation has changed so much that the idea of such mortal threats to this country or to any other Commonwealth country is inconceivable. To such ostriches all I would say is look at the former Yugoslavia. Man is still a fighting animal with the

711
veneer of civilised behaviour. We hope and pray that the veneer will not peel off. I doubt that we have or will ever reach such a happy state of security. But of course we must all keep trying to reach that heaven on earth.
What, then, is left to bind our Commonwealth together? One idea which is neither new nor untried is the interchange of training exercises that our Armed Forces and those of Commonwealth countries have enjoyed for many years. Some of that has been eroded by shrinking defence budgets; some have been affected by attitudes like New Zealand's to nuclear matters. But the scope for high grade training with our all professional forces is still extensive. I was delighted that South Africa is reportedly turning to us for help with its restructured services. Perhaps that will prove to be one of the first steps towards a return of that beautiful country to the Commonwealth. What a boost that would be for the Commonwealth. What a putdown for the Jonah s who say that the days of the Commonwealth are numbered. I for one hope that they are not.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I too should like to begin by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for giving us a chance to have a look at this often low profile but often very effective institution. When I was trying to clear my mind before the debate on my views of the Commonwealth it seemed to me that one's approach depends very much on one's age. I can remember being a schoolboy before the war, as many of your Lordships must have been, and looking on the old British Empire with the greatest pride, covering as it did, or so we were told, a fifth of the world's surface and a quarter of the world's population. Most families had fathers, brothers or uncles in either the Indian Army or the Colonial Service. The general feeling among us boys was that we were unquestionably top nation. This was the source of greatest pride to us as we looked back through some 200 years of our history and looked forward with great confidence.
Of course in 1939 came the Second World War and within weeks most of our dominions and our colonies had rallied to our cause. At that point it was no more than a European conflict, the apotheosis, one might think, of the Empire, and the dawn perhaps of the Commonwealth. At the end of the war there was a quite remarkable change. Within about two decades the old dominions had become noticeably more independent in their foreign policy and outlook on world affairs and the colonies had become for the most part independent. Someone of my age cannot but look back with a certain nostalgia to that past which I suppose will remain with me as long as I am alive.
So much for what I might loosely call the older generation. But what of the young? By "young" in this context I would take those born after the end of the Second World War. What do they think? I have no extensive survey on this matter to rely on but I have consulted a limited number of the young and the early middle-aged on the subject. I think it is fair to say that to most of them the old British Empire is a historical fact like the Roman Empire but of course much more recent; but nonetheless a part of history. They look forward
712
either with enthusiasm, or with diminished enthusiasm, to our approach to Europe. To them there is a certain inevitability about the call of Europe which will take us into that continent in closer and closer alliance.
On this point I agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff that there is a latent conflict between the old Commonwealth and our involvement with. Europe. It is very difficult to see the two marching hand in hand together. When we launched ourselves into our European commitment we took the decision that Europe was the way for this island to go in the future and that contacts with the old Commonwealth would be of a sentimental and perhaps utilitarian nature. It is an obvious cliché that the future belongs to the young and the prospects for our remaining as a united association for any great length of time are rather limited.
But we are looking at the position in 1994. What should we do now? What bonds do we have with the Commonwealth that we should strengthen and acclaim as far as possible? One point that weighs quite heavily with me is the moral obligation that we have towards our old colonies, and I suppose to a lesser extent towards our old dominions. For up to 200 years they produced men to fight our wars and materials to feed our factories. We in turn gave them what we think of as benign government. But we owe a moral debt to them which will continue into the future for quite some time.
There is no doubt that being also members of the Commonwealth and being the mother country—I suppose primus inter pares—we are able to exert an influence around the world out of all proportion to our economic and military strength. The Commonwealth's influence goes into all corners of the world. We can exchange ideas and bring pressure to bear whenever we think that is advantageous to world peace or world prosperity. The other members of the Commonwealth seem to appreciate this institution. As was pointed out earlier in the debate, they even wish to return to it when for political reasons they have in the past departed. As long as there is that degree of enthusiasm on the part of the other members of the Commonwealth there seems to be a considerable burden of responsibility upon us to keep it going.
I have one caveat which relates to power. Power resides in very few places in the world—in the United States; in the United Nations perhaps; maybe in due course in Europe. But it does not reside in the Commonwealth. It is an association which can exert influence. We should not seek to press it beyond that limitation. All in all it seems to me that for the immediate future, and perhaps for the medium-term future, the Commonwealth is a benign institution. It has been useful to us and we have made a useful contribution to it in the past. As long as we have the modest resources which we do to support it, we should bring those resources to bear as fully as possible.
6.18 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, as most noble Lords have already mentioned, it is opportune that today's debate takes place on the occasion of the first non-racial elections in South Africa—a day which we all welcome. The South African debate, perhaps more

713
than any other, has been a central, and yet extremely divisive, issue within the Commonwealth for almost three decades. Following the demise of apartheid—and anticipating South Africa's imminent application to rejoin the Commonwealth which it left in 1961—it is to be hoped that that wealthy and diverse country will again become an active contributor to constructive development within the organisation, particularly within Africa.
In my brief nine-minute contribution to today's debate I intend to focus on South Africa's application and to discuss the general role of the Commonwealth. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, refer to the birth of the Commonwealth before the First World War. To my understanding, the earliest recorded us of the phrase "Commonwealth" was in your Lordships' House by the Earl of Rosebery, who in 1884 declared:
"the British Empire is a commonwealth of nations".
The concept of consultation and co-operation between equals was later formalised by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Noble Lords last called attention to the future of the Commonwealth in the debate which my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow initiated in November 1990. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Waverley has again raised this issue before your Lordships today.
There is a growing perception—and one which I hope is mistaken—that Britain's commitment to the Commonwealth is waning and that we are less concerned with our Commonwealth links than with our European ties and our ties with the United States. It has been argued that the Government's decision to cut their grant-in-aid to the Commonwealth Institute from March 1996 is an indication of their decreasing esteem for the entire organisation. I hasten to stress that I do not believe that this is the case, particularly in view of the fact that Britain has always contributed well in excess of 30 per cent. of the secretariat's running costs, quite apart from the support which it continues to provide to a broad variety of Commonwealth initiatives and programmes.
However, while the basic concept of the Commonwealth is sound, I believe that there is scope for sharpening its agendas and goals. If it is to realise its full potential, the Commonwealth must be more than merely a talking shop laden with fine language and good intentions. It must act; but, more importantly, it must be seen to act. As both maiden speakers have already mentioned in their most commanding speeches today, for much of the past decade successive heads of government meetings have been occupied —I should rather say "preoccupied"—with the issue of applying pressure through sanctions on the minority government in South Africa. The discussion was certainly lively—and in many respects those sanctions did produce the desired effect of what we are seeing today—but the organisation often seemed more ready to condemn the system rather than to constructively assist in redeveloping South Africa. The dawn of a new, fully democratic South Africa now, as I mentioned at the start of my address, offers the Commonwealth an opportunity to address a more positive agenda towards
714
the more global issues such as the recurring famine in most parts of Africa, civil wars, trading relationships and, of course, what my noble friend has already mentioned, the whole awareness of the global environment.
My own belief is that the Commonwealth can and shall always play an important role in the broader dissemination of information on subjects such as recent technological advances, education and farming. Here I should like to refer to one of the developing countries, Zimbabwe, which suffered last year from a catastrophic famine. I certainly feel that Zimbabwe would derive significantly greater long-term benefit from, for example, a Commonwealth group of advisers on the latest agricultural methods than it would from just another cash hand-out, which often has found its way into the wrong hands. There is, in fact, a well-worn African saying that if you give a man a fish you will feed him for a day whereas if you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for life.
I believe that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Ameka Anyaoku, has played a pivotal role in re-focusing the aims of the Commonwealth, in unifying its members and, specifically, in expanding the Commonwealth's role in the monitoring of elections around the world. This crucial role is one which has been undertaken, as we all know and as we speak now, at the polling stations in and around South Africa. The Commonwealth observer mission has been active throughout the country for more than a year, assisting local officials in the nervous transition to democracy. The Commonwealth has also provided invaluable assistance in the training of mediators and marshals specialising in crowd control.
Many noble Lords may be aware that Nelson Mandela told the Secretary-General in November last year that one of his new government's first policy decisions would be to apply to rejoin the Commonwealth. There are a number of reasons for that. In the first place, the ANC is acutely aware that the political and economic world is increasingly made up of powerful blocs. They realise that if a country wants economic growth, it should join a bloc; and that political reform should encompass a free market.
One of the ANC's fears is that, in this fast-changing world, attention appears to be drifting away from the continent of Africa. Its recent foreign policy document discussed the urgent need to reinsert South Africa into the regional and world economy. They believe that the country should be up front and a major and visible player in international forums, signing treaties, affirming conventions and relearning the global liturgy and litany.
Here I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. The Commonwealth has often been vulnerable to the charge that while it has advocated democratic freedoms globally, it has often condoned their absence among its own members. It is to be hoped that South Africa, once it has rejoined the Commonwealth, will assist in upholding the moral high ground.
In practical terms, renewed membership of the Commonwealth will give South Africa access to a wide

715
range of specialist services, such as training and advice. It will also, possibly, result in a number of bilateral trade deals. South Africans are aware that the Commonwealth recently interceded on behalf of its members over the GATT talks. A joint Commonwealth-UN donors' conference on management and skill training is scheduled to be held in the aftermath of the elections. South Africa will also welcome the opportunity to compete shortly in the Commonwealth Games in Victoria, Canada, in August this year.
Thabo Mbeki, the likely Minister of Foreign Affairs in the new ANC Government, attended the heads of government meeting in Cyprus last year and was eager to stress the importance of improving economic and political links with Asian Commonwealth members as well as with Australia and Canada. He added that South Africa's reacceptance by the Commonwealth should send a signal to the IMF, the World Bank and international investors, that South Africa once again is keeping respectable company and can be trusted to play by the rules, one of which is to remain a multi-party democracy. Here I conclude by saying that "respectable company" is the key. The Commonwealth may rarely scream and shout these days, but I believe that it goes about its business calmly and efficiently. That is surely to be encouraged.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as many speakers have said, today is a special day for the Commonwealth. The holding of multi-racial elections in South Africa as far as the Commonwealth is concerned is equal to the fall of the Berlin Wall for the world at large. If there was one issue which divided the Commonwealth it was the issue of South Africa. That is out of the way and the Commonwealth can go back to what it was intended to be; namely, a Commonwealth of nations which can live together in harmony.
I wish to return to the analogy of the Commonwealth and the United Nations, but before doing so perhaps I may make one or two historical allusions. The origin of the Commonwealth has been traced back to at least 1884. There is one thing which I wish to say in addition which is not quite about the word "Commonwealth" being used. India was taken over from the East India Company by the British Government in 1858. As far as I know, it is in Queen Victoria's declaration that for the first time the words "protection of rights regardless of creed, colour or religion" are used. Those words of 1858 anticipated the Harare Commonwealth Declaration. I do not mean that facetiously. If one reads the life of Mahatma Gandhi, who visited South Africa, one discovers that he decided that he had to intervene on the side of the British in the Boer War because he was a staunch Empire loyalist and believed in Queen Victoria's declaration. He was disappointed in practice, but that is what started him off. He believed that the rights of the Indians in South Africa were guaranteed by that declaration and he insisted on those rights. These matters have a long history and, although things have mutated and changed and we are clearly far from those
716
days, it has always been the case that membership of the Commonwealth is independent of religion, race or colour.
I should also add that the history that was taught in India was that the post-war new Commonwealth was possible because Mr. Nehru, a Harrow and Trinity graduate, invented the formula whereby India could stay in the Commonwealth and Her Majesty could be redefined as Head of the Commonwealth rather than as Empress of the British Empire. In the discussions that were held in 1947–48, that was a crucial breakthrough in creating the Commonwealth.
One dimension that has been missing from the debate is that we still tend to regard the Commonwealth from the British point of view and to ask, "What is in it for us?", rather than, "What is in it for all of us, mutually coming together?" The reality of the Commonwealth is not merely Britain's exports to and imports from the Commonwealth. We must remember that Commonwealth countries export to each other. It is not an asymmetric system whereby the UK helps everybody else and nobody helps the UK. Various countries, such as Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand, play lead roles in various matters. It is an achievement of the Commonwealth that a number of countries that were formerly dependent territories now play major and leading roles in a variety of matters such as human rights, the monitoring of elections or development aid. One should see the Commonwealth not just as a family of nations headed by the mother country, but more as a genuine free association of countries.
One of the most remarkable things about the Commonwealth is that its total expenditure on all bodies such as the Secretariat is only £35 million per year. That is an extremely small sum of money. One of the reasons why people tend to ignore the Commonwealth is that it is terribly cost-effective. If it spent anything like the amount of money that the United Nations spends, or even its proportionate share thereof, it would be spending several billions of pounds and perhaps people would take more notice of it; perhaps we would complain more about it because we would see our money being wasted. It is because money is not being wasted that we ignore it. The Commonwealth Secretariat spends £9 million per year. I dare say that more money is stolen from the Mogadishu office of the United Nations in a day than is spent by the Commonwealth Secretariat. We have to say proudly and positively that the Commonwealth is an extremely cost-effective international system. I would call it a "global sub-system" because, as many noble Lords have pointed out, its reach is global. It has a membership in many different countries, north and south, developed and less developed. The Commonwealth is in every continent.
The Commonwealth almost parallels the United Nations, but on a smaller scale. It is not a regional treaty. It is not a trading area. It is not a rich man's club, or anything like it. However, in a very quiet and effective way, the Commonwealth performs certain of the tasks that the United Nations tries to do—be they in the areas of human rights, aid or intervention in quarrels between member nations. It would be a very good thing for us on

717
another occasion to concentrate on asking whether the Commonwealth is not a very good model for the United Nations to follow. If the United Nations could behave like the Commonwealth, the world could be much better off.
Finally, many noble Lords have mentioned the importance of South Africa. I think that the Commonwealth could perform a major task if many countries showed some willingness about enabling it to do so. The last frontier of poverty and underdevelopment happens to be sub-Saharan Africa. In the mid-1960s we used to worry about India and China being able to feed themselves. We do not worry about that now. South Asia has gone off the agenda of urgent development problems. The urgent development problem today is in sub-Saharan Africa and it is in exactly that region that the Commonwealth has a major presence. The Commonwealth could do something tremendous there, starting from the Trinidad Conditions and other things. We should urge and enable the Commonwealth, through the Secretariat and the joint action of many nations, perhaps at the next Commonwealth heads of government meeting, to tackle the urgent problem of relieving African poverty. Now that South Africa could become part of the Commonwealth, there is an even greater need to do so and to do so urgently.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, I join other speakers in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on the timing and subject of his Motion.
For many years past, the importance of the Commonwealth has been obscured by the controversies surrounding our membership of the European Union. I was a very late convert to the ideal of a united Europe because I believed that it would eventually damage Great Britain's relations with the Commonwealth, which to me was the greatest achievement in our history. Now our commitment to the European ideal has been undermined by what is known in the media as "Euro-scepticism" which is really a brand of narrow, bloody-minded Anglo-Saxon nationalism, the like of which has never been afoot in this country since King Harold's Anglo-Saxon army was defeated in 1066 and all that.
Yet the Commonwealth still exists. It may well be, as other noble Lords have said, that before the end of 1994, South Africa (under a new name) may wish to rejoin, just as Pakistan wished to do a year or two back.
The significance of all this is that despite Britain's membership of Europe, she is still the founder member of a world organisation covering every continent and comprising 50 members of all races, cultures, and religions—great and small—which believe that that membership is of benefit to them. The design and effectiveness of other international organisations has been brought into disrepute in recent years, yet systems of international co-operation and mutual help are more important today than ever before. Surely it is time that Great Britain, with its special relationship with fellow members of the Commonwealth everywhere, should
718
consult them on how the Commonwealth can play a more effective and constructive role in world affairs. Should there be a Commonwealth bank? Should there be a Commonwealth conciliation commission to help to resolve disagreements between Commonwealth members? How should the present system of Commonwealth consultation through periodic Commonwealth conferences be reorganised? And how should Commonwealth countries get help to resolve the internal problems which so many of them from time to time have to face?
What those of us who have believed in the Commonwealth over recent years have been concerned about is the obvious failure of several Commonwealth conferences, for instance, Singapore in the 'seventies and Cyprus last year. That has been partly due to the personalities of the British Prime Ministers of the day, but more because areas of controversy have obscured the many problems with which the Commonwealth could help to deal. In spite of the end of the Cold War, this is not a safe world for any country, and to be the member of an effective group of nations is important to everyone, but it must be effective within the inevitable limitations of geography and national interest.
In considering how the Commonwealth can become politically more effective, I suggest that consultation between members should be based on regional interests and that observers from all members of the other regions should be entitled to attend each regional conference. The regions should be: first, Asia and Australasia; secondly, the Americas; and, thirdly, Africa south of the Sahara. Those regional conferences should take place in successive years, and there should be a full Commonwealth conference every fourth year. There should also be agreement to call a regional conference if members feel that a matter of great urgency has arisen.
I am thinking now particularly of Africa. If as I hope —and I think everyone in the House hopes—South Africa again becomes a member of the Commonwealth, its influence and problems will dominate the continent and require the understanding and support of the Commonwealth to a far greater extent than any other issue Commonwealth statesmanship has had to face during recent years. Help there cannot come from other international organisations such as the United Nations or NATO or the OAU. Whatever may be the outcome of the election and the events of subsequent months in South Africa, I hope that the Government of Great Britain and other members of the Commonwealth will be ready to provide the effective help that South Africa will need, after years of isolation, to become a stable, multiracial, prosperous and democratic country for the future.
What is now most important is that there should be a thorough review of the role and organisation of the Commonwealth as a result of the immense changes that have taken place in world affairs during the past few years. I urge the Government, in consultation with other members of the Commonwealth, to set in motion a wide-ranging review, designed to make the Commonwealth a more effective organisation of international co-operation in a dangerous world. I

719
believe that taking such an initiative is our duty, and that that would be very much in the interests of all members, not least those of Great Britain itself.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, it is good to be having this debate on the Commonwealth and to be reminded of its unique character and significance in a still divided and troubled world. For that we should all be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. The Commonwealth is neither an empire nor a confederation; it possesses no centralised government, no common currency, no common defence system. It comprises kingdoms and republics, sovereign states and dependencies. To some it may seem illogical and unwieldy, but the point is, of course, that it works.
Despite all the pressures of this terrifying century, the Commonwealth continues to hold together. Each successive challenge to its existence finds it as resilient as ever. One reason for that may be that the Commonwealth is dedicated to the service of ideas greater than itself. But, whatever the reason, it provides all its members with an example of how free peoples can live and work together for the common good. It consists, as we know, of two parts. On the one hand stands a loose association of independent sovereign states, of which the United Kingdom is but one, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another, staunch comrades in war, reliable friends in peace—an association which might be defined as an experiment in co-operation among sovereign peoples.
Here the United Kingdom may generally rely upon a common sympathy and understanding, but in no circumstances can it command adherence to its policies. There are then the remaining colonial territories—dependencies still, but moving at varying paces away from dependence upon the mother country towards partnership with her within the Commonwealth.
Opportunity beckons hopefully to us as we prepare to enter the 21st century, not just in the fully self-governing Commonwealth countries but in the remaining dependencies where there are still untapped resources and great potential markets. Nowhere will British capacity for leadership, example and understanding be tested more severely in the years ahead than in this remarkable evolving system, for here we are engaged in one of the most exciting and inspiring ventures ever undertaken by a single nation—that of helping millions of relatively poor people to stand on their own feet and to take their place among the free, self-governing nations of the world. It should be a matter of immense pride that the crucial election now taking place in South Africa is being monitored by a team from both Houses of our Parliament.
Let us make no mistake. Ours is a Herculean task, for no two dependencies are truly alike. Their peoples are at almost every conceivable stage of social, political and economic development. Some are now well advanced along the road to full self-government; others are not. Some are relatively well endowed with natural resources and are now capable of fairly rapid economic
720
development; others are faced with the dark prospect of an increasing population outstripping the means of subsistence.
I speak as one who for many years was chairman of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. My predecessor was the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, who spoke earlier with his usual wisdom, and with whom for many years I was always proud to work in a noble cause. I hope that it follows from what I have said that awareness of the Commonwealth and its potential in a still greatly troubled world is vital to our people.
That brings me to draw your Lordships' attention to a matter which should be of great concern to Parliament, and now appears to be of growing concern outside; namely, the announcement last September—I hope that it will not matter that in this context I sound a little critical—that the Government would 'withdraw their funding of the Commonwealth Institute in London in March 1996. That was despite the recommendation in the Government's own review last year, led by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, who spoke with such distinction earlier, that the institute has an important role to play as,
"a significant demonstration of the Government's commitment to the idea of the Commonwealth".
The noble Lord recommended that it should remain open.
There is every possible objection to the Government's proposal, and, rightly, it has provoked considerable opposition. I shall not go into detail about the institute's contribution to teaching young people about the Commonwealth, both at the institute and in the schools, save to say that it is formidable. It has been highly praised by educationists all over the country. Last year the institute was the winner of the prestigious Gulbenkian Award for the most imaginative contribution to education work.
There is no need for any of us here to speak of the work of the CPA, which maintains close links, as we all know, with parliamentarians from all over the Commonwealth, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, reminded us at the outset of his excellent opening speech.
I feel strongly about the Government's decision to withdraw funding from the Commonwealth Institute, and I hope that my noble friend will take note and that there will be second thoughts.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the maiden speakers on their splendid contributions. I am especially indebted to my noble friend Lord Waverley for introducing the debate for I am a child of the Commonwealth. I was brought up in what was Southern Rhodesia and later lived for some years in independent Zimbabwe. I have reason to have great gratitude to the Commonwealth because of the part that it played by ending the terrible civil war in that country and by bringing it to independence.
During the interim period in early 1980, when the late Lord Soames was Governor of Rhodesia, had some dealings concerning that country with Chief Anyaoku

721
who was then Commonwealth Deputy Secretary-General and is now, of course, Commonwealth Secretary-General. I am delighted to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Chief Anyaoku's courtesy, kindness and wisdom.
Since South Africa left the Commonwealth 33 years ago, my noble kinsman Lord Cranborne and I have not always seen eye to eye about every single development in southern Africa. However, today I am confident that, along with other noble Lords, we are united in rejoicing at the prospect of South Africa returning to the Commonwealth.
The new era in South African history will bring new problems. A permanent constitution has yet to be negotiated and it may well be that the Commonwealth will be able to help in resolving the amount of power which the provinces should have in future. Externally, an important priority for South Africa will be its relations with other countries in the region. Undoubtedly, it will join the Southern African Development Community—SADC—which the Commonwealth played a major part in founding. Indeed, the Commonwealth continues to provide considerable assistance to the SADC secretariat.
The 10 countries of SADC—eight from the Commonwealth together with Angola and Mozambique —will welcome South Africa's partnership. Doubtless the Commonwealth can help diplomatically to ensure that that partnership does not become domination.
As many other noble Lords have said, for many years white minority rule in southern Africa has been a major preoccupation. The dawn of majority rule in South Africa makes this a good time at which to take stock of the Commonwealth and look to its future. As the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said, to some extent the Commonwealth glues together a large number of countries across the globe. In the dangerous world which has developed since the breakup of the Soviet Union, such glue is an invaluable commodity.
The report of the Secretary-General in 1993 shows the astonishingly heavy and wide burden that Ministers impose on the secretariat. I wish to pick out three areas which I suggest should form the nucleus of the future endeavours of the Commonwealth.
The first area is political. In the spirit of the Harare Declaration of 1991, the Commonwealth has sent observers to monitor multi-party elections in Zambia, the Seychelles, Guyana, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Pakistan and now South Africa. In addition, the Secretary-General has sent missions in advance of elections to provide advice and expertise in various areas of law and electoral procedures. After elections, the Commonwealth is well aware of the danger of one-day democracy. Therefore, it follows up elections with technical assistance in constitutional and electoral reform and the strengthening of electoral commissions. That vital democratic work will continue as more countries move to democracy. For example, the Commonwealth should soon be monitoring elections in Malawi.
The second area is economic management. I stress the example of the Commonwealth Secretariat's
722
debt-recording and management system. This is a computerised system developed in response to the debt crisis during the 1980s. It has proved a brilliant success. This month Swaziland and Lesotho have become the two most recent of no less than 36 Commonwealth countries to be trained in and use the system. Fiji, Laos, Mozambique, Thailand, and Bulgaria have also installed this brain-child of the Commonwealth, and several eastern European and French West African countries are likely to do so soon.
The third area lies with trade and following up the Uruguay Round of GATT. The Commonwealth worked hard to get the Uruguay Round accepted. Now that it has been, small Commonwealth countries without the necessary legal expertise will need Commonwealth assistance in modifying their laws to conform with the changes in GATT. The Commonwealth can also help them in identifying new markets for their products as a result of the Uruguay Round.
Those who think the Commonwealth is a fading organisation should think again. Cameroon has applied to join and South Africa is expected to apply. Fiji appears to want to return and Mozambique has indicated it may seek to join. Countries do not join dying clubs. This one is thriving.
Some people think the Commonwealth should be a sort of competitor to the United Nations, operating on a very wide basis and adopting the old Avis commercial slogan, "We're smaller, so we have to try harder."
I believe that the Commonwealth should identify narrower goals, including the political, economic management, and trade areas that I have outlined. Thus, I believe that the Commonwealth slogan should become, "We're smaller, so in those things we select to do, we are even more successful."
6.56 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Waverley for providing us with this opportunity to discuss what to many of us is a most important subject, particularly in view of recent developments and the prospect of future opportunities.
I have said before in a previous debate that we have devoted little time in the deliberations of this House to the affairs of the Commonwealth in recent years. Happily, that condition was put right two-and-a-half years ago when my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow moved a Motion on the future of the Commonwealth. But prior to that debate, there had not been a general discussion of Commonwealth affairs in this House since 1975, when my noble friend, the late Lord Garner, who spent a considerable part of his life serving the Commonwealth, initiated a debate on the value of the Commonwealth, shortly after the referendum reaffirming Britain's decision to join the European Community.
It is perhaps worthy of note that at that time the Commonwealth comprised 34 member states. Perhaps, also, it has been the natural preoccupation with European affairs that has inhibited more discussion of

723
Commonwealth affairs in the interim. But that condition has certainly been corrected today and we have had a splendid number of excellent speeches on the subject.
In the debate nearly 10 years ago, Lord Garner postulated the view that despite Britain's entry into Europe, there was no reason that it should stand in the way of our Commonwealth relationship. He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who said that he saw nothing incompatible between British membership of the European Community and British partnership in the Commonwealth. I believe that those predictions of those far-sighted statesmen have been amply justified, as the noble Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out.
Despite the optimism of those of us who are champions of the Commonwealth, it would be idle to deny that it has had its problems. The departure of South Africa in March 1961 was a regrettable but inevitable event in view of the abhorrence of the apartheid regime by the large majority of member countries. But, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, in the intervening years, both individually and collectively, significant efforts were made at heads of government meetings, and otherwise, to bring about the abolition of apartheid. Much of that activity was more or less "off stage" and received no general public attention; but I think it is fair to say, as indeed other speakers have, that the influence of the Commonwealth exerted by individual members and through the Commonwealth Secretariat has had a clearly beneficial effect in bringing about the marvellous event that we are celebrating today as South Africans go to the polls in their first all-race election.
The work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has been mentioned by many speakers. Of course, the association is, indeed, the trade association of parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth. Apart from its role in monitoring elections, it provides an important focus in all 50 member countries for legislators to exchange information by means of parliamentary seminars and annual conferences which are invaluable to the improvement, extension and preservation of our democratic parliamentary system —not only at the national level but also at state and provincial level. In that connection, perhaps it is worth noting that the concept of a scrutiny committee on delegated legislation, which now exists in your Lordships' House, had its origin in a brief presented by members of the Australian Senate at the Commonwealth Conference on Delegated Legislation held in London in 1989.
I refer to those specific matters because, although members of that international organisation do not have —nor, indeed, was it ever intended that they should have—a distinct political cohesion, its members have demonstrated over the years that they share an amorphous and often totally pragmatic sort of democratic confraternity, at least enough to bring their leaders together every two years to exchange ideas and promote causes. On occasions, they differ. But whatever differences of opinion may develop, they all return in two years' time to go at it again. To me, that indicates a certain commitment to the continuation of the organisation.
724
However, as beautifully described by my noble friend Lord Charteris, the greatest commitment of all has been that of Her Majesty the Queen, whether in her capacity as head of state or head of the Commonwealth. Her dedication to the preservation of the ideal of an international family of nations and the support of other members of the Royal Family have been a pre-eminent factor in keeping the whole thing together. One only need read the reports of the recent visit of Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh to the Caribbean to be smitten with the affection and respect that she enjoys in that region.
For those reasons, I believe it is fair to conclude, as the Motion begs, that the 'Commonwealth is alive and well and ready to meet new challenges.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Harlech: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Waverley for the invitation to contribute to this most interesting and, in my view, very important debate. The countries of the Commonwealth cover just under a quarter of the world's land mass and have just over a quarter of the world's population. Perhaps I may put that into perspective. The population of Commonwealth countries is about the same as the population of all non-Commonwealth countries in Africa, the United States, Europe, the former USSR and., indeed, in Europe and in Asia combined. It includes some of the largest and some of the smallest, some of the richest and some of the poorest and some of the most developed and some of the least developed countries on earth.
Despite that extraordinary diversity, the member states of the Commonwealth are bound together of their own free will and, as we have heard, are pledged under the Harare Commonwealth Declaration to democracy, the rule of law, good government and human rights; the promotion of equality for women; the provision of universal access to education; the promotion of sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty; action against disease and illegal drugs (which have all been mentioned by my noble friends); help for Commonwealth states; and support of the United Nations in the quest for international consensus on key issues of global importance, which is vital to the whole fabric of that voluntary arrangement. Those goals as set out in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration are important and a great force for good. I believe that they form a sound and civilised base upon which the further development and modernisation of the Commonwealth for its own benefit and that of all its members can be built.
Until now Britain, as a former imperialist power, has quite naturally been in a difficult position. Too much enthusiasm to be among the leaders and moulders of the Commonwealth could have been interpreted by other members as as a desire to return to its imperialist past; but too hesitant a support for the Commonwealth could be read as a rejection of old friends in favour of the European Community. I believe that the time is now right for us to put aside that shyness —guilt almost—and grasp the nettle.

725
I should like to touch very briefly on just two aspects of the Commonwealth—trade and the alleviation of poverty. Trade, by way of education and skills, is the life blood of this country and it was in the interests of trade, as well as for other political and security reasons, that many of us felt that our ties with Europe should become closer. Two world wars, with 60 million people dead in less than 30 years is not a good record. I have never believed that we should see trade in terms of either Europe or the Commonwealth; or, indeed, the rest of the world. We must make the most of our opportunity. Trade depends on contacts and links with other nations. In the Commonwealth all member states, including Britain, can take advantage of the unique links that history has provided.
In one sense, it is the infinite variety of the Commonwealth, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that is of particular benefit to all its members, for it is the nature of successful trade that unlike deals with unlike. For example, if I produce eggs and my neighbour produces eggs, together we may well have a surplus. On the other hand, if I produce eggs and my neighbour produces sugar, with a little ingenuity we may indeed have meringues.
If I were to list the main exports of Commonwealth countries, excluding Britain, it would probably take me a week to do so. However, a list of some of the purely agricultural products of Commonwealth countries is impressive. I ask noble Lords to bear with me for a moment while I read an impressive list which will not take me a week. It includes arrowroot, avocado pears, barley, bananas, beef cattle, breadfruit, cabbages, canola, carrots, cassava, cashew nuts, cauliflowers, clove oil, cloves, cocoa, coconuts, coffee, copra, cotton, flax, flowers, fruit, goats, grapes, groundnuts, jute, lemons, lime juice, lime oil, maize, mangoes, marrows, millet, nutmeg, nuts, oats, oil palm, oil seeds, onions, oranges, peanuts, pineapples, potatoes, pulses, rice, rubber, sorghum, sea island cotton, sheep, sisal, spices, sugar cane, tarrow, tea, tobacco, tomatoes, tropical fruit, vanilla, wheat, wine and yams. That was precised by the way. All these things we need and they touch all of us every day. We can provide few of them ourselves. We must trade but trade must be fair if it is to create wealth in the interests of all. It must not be exploitative.
Fairness between the developed and the developing nations is essential if the world is to survive successfully some of the pressures that the next few decades will bring. Already 780 million people in the world have insufficient food. Three million children—by UNESCO's January 1994 figures —die each year of starvation and of diseases which would be survivable but for malnutrition. The world population doubles every 50 years.
Meanwhile the countries of Europe and North America, where 70 per cent. of the most productive farmland lies, pay their farmers not to grow food. By what right can we criticise those governments that allow tropical rain forests to be commercially exploited—we have every right to criticise them—when in the developed world we artificially, and some would say
726
cynically, manipulate the world's food supply? Is that fair? Is it right? Can we not do better? Have I not explained the outputs of the Commonwealth countries?
The Commonwealth, like any other institution of course, must be prepared to adapt, change and redefine its role in a rapidly changing world. I believe it is in Britain's interests and that of the Commonwealth as a whole that we take an active and enthusiastic part in that process. However, the Commonwealth is unique. It provides an opportunity for problems such as those that I have touched upon to begin to be tackled. Their solution does not lie wholly within the Commonwealth itself, but what other organisation is better able to give a lead?
I believe that in the coming years dialogue and understanding between nations over the fundamental human issues of our globe and how we are to survive on this planet and make it work for us, as well as preserve it, will become more important than ever before. The Commonwealth is a central force for those issues. The chairman of the Commonwealth Foundation, Sir Richard Luce, made an interesting statement in The Times on 29th October 1993. He wrote:
"no one should underestimate what all this contact can do for greater understanding in a sorely troubled world. This is truly a people's Commonwealth—the value is unquantifiable and unsung but it is priceless".
In conclusion, they say that if a job is worth doing it is worth doing properly. I believe that helping to define the role of the Commonwealth and our contribution to it is a job very well worth doing.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and I am very much of his persuasion that the job is worth doing and that we must try to help the Commonwealth take its rightful place in the future deliberations in the world. I begin by saying that I wish to join with all other speakers who have thanked the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for introducing this discussion. I also wish to thank the two maiden speakers for their splendid contributions today. Like everyone else I, too, look forward to hearing from them many times in the future.
I am afraid I cannot see the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in the Chamber. I worry whenever I cross swords with the noble Lord, as when we have lunch together I always lose the argument. The same is true of the noble Lord, Lord Elibank. The people that I come into contact with at Cambridge are all absolutely delighted with the idea of preventing wars by uniting Europe so that the people from the Commonwealth will not have to bleed to death on the battlefield to defend us. I believe the first thing we must do is to get the war situation under control in Europe as far as we can, as Europe has been a cesspit for wars. That is when the spirit of the Commonwealth can break out and, I hope, win hearts and minds everywhere.
I warn noble Lords that I wish to spend a few moments discussing three topics. The first is frankly concerned with nostalgia. The second concerns the success story of the Association of Commonwealth Universities. We have been hearing about education and I believe that it should be placed on record in Hansard

727
what the Association of Commonwealth Universities has achieved. If I have time to reach my third point, I shall discuss a personal failure. I am sorry that I cannot see the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, at the moment but my personal failure was inspired by a speech which he gave to the Cross Benchers.
I wish to start by saying what a marvellous concept the Commonwealth was for so many of us at Oxford. Cecil Rhodes made his money and started his wonderful scholarship scheme. Incredibly mature young men came from all parts of the world, including, in my time, Germany and many came from America. Those young men were role models for leadership and role models for a part of the university's development which is, perhaps sadly, now less influential in forming the lives and attitudes of the young people who pass through our institutions of higher education.
I acknowledge that when I was an undergraduate at Oxford I was one in 2.000 young people of my age who received a university education. Now there are more university places. By contrast, a young man who gained a Rhodes scholarship constituted one person in 2 million. Of course those young men were remarkable people. I can think of—without bringing myself close to tears—the remarkable young men who influenced me through their examples of leadership when I was an undergraduate. I am not talking just of their leadership qualities on the rugby or cricket field. I was impressed by their orderly manner of conducting themselves. One such young man was a remarkable half blue ice hockey player at Exeter College named Robertson who became secretary to the Canadian Government. Another was a wonderful American called John Palmer who became the doyen of Yale University. He was a remarkable scholar of the English language.
When we are thinking of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, we must not forget the important impact of the Commonwealth and of Cecil Rhodes's great vision. That vision had an impact on many of us who were studying at university. The Rhodes Trust began in 1883. Thirty years later a group of people who were concerned with the Empire met in London. Over the years that group developed into the Association of Commonwealth Universities.
I asked the secretariat of the association to provide some facts and figures. It is a remarkable organisation. It covers 427 universities in 32 Commonwealth countries. They meet in the same spirit as the politicians meet. The organisation finds scholars both to come here and to go from here to the Commonwealth. It finds medical researchers. It finds ways and means of encouraging women in education across the Commonwealth. It is a rather sad reflection that we have only one lady speaker—the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton—in today's debate. There needs to be a greater role for women in the debate about how the Commonwealth can help in the future.
One of the most important functions of the association is its meetings. These are held every two-and-a-half years for vice-chancellors and executive heads and every five years for the universities generally. I have attended three quinquennial meetings. I attended one in Edinburgh, which was somewhat marred because
728
apartheid was just beginning and the people from India, for example, were very cross with the British university staff for not taking off their academic gowns—and perhaps even their shoes—and marching through the streets of Edinburgh shouting "Down with apartheid". The British wanted a quieter approach to the subject. Now, years later, one can see that the quiet approach has produced an impressive victory in South Africa.
There was a great meeting in Perth, Western Australia. The theme of that meeting was the contribution of the universities to national development. That was very important to the universities in the developing countries. Last summer in Swansea the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—who is sorry not to be here today—gave a splendid welcoming speech. The theme that we went at hammer and tongs was preserving the environment.
The universities touch upon many topics. One which I should like to mention in particular is the development of distance education. One of the problems in the developing countries is cost. Distance education provides a means of bringing the best lectures to everybody. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Perry, is not in his place because he is part of the world movement on this.
Perhaps I may finish with my failure. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, from the Cross-Benches told us about the most recent Commonwealth Conference in Cyprus. I was very much struck by the contribution that Her Majesty makes to the cohesion of the Commonwealth. I am jealous of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, for having been involved in that at such close range.
I talked to my friends in the Association of Commonwealth Universities and asked whether each of the 427 universities could send a contribution—a piece of wood or metal—which we could put in an urn and send to Her Majesty as part of her 40th jubilee celebrations. Unfortunately, we were not able to do that. I still regret that the universities did not add some tangible sign of their appreciation of Her Majesty's remarkable service to the idea of the Commonwealth to show that the young people feel that way.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, a long-standing engagement of a committee of your Lordships' House which I chair to hear evidence from witnesses from abroad made it impossible for me to be here during the whole of the debate. I regret particularly that I was not present for the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. Nevertheless, I feel that it is not inappropriate that a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should say something in a debate about the Commonwealth.
The debate has already shown that the Commonwealth has many strengths. Not the least of those strengths, indeed, apart from the personal role and dedication of Her Majesty the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth, perhaps one of the greatest and most enduring strengths of the Commonwealth, has been the fact that so many of its members share the common law. Those of us who believe that one of Britain's most

729
important actions in the past was the introduction of the common law into many areas of the world do not exaggerate. I am still moved by an inscription in a book given to me by an Indian Supreme Court judge who wrote after my name:
"whose country has given India its most precious possession, the rule of law".
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who introduced this excellent debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to the importance of the common law as a feature of the Commonwealth. I seek to stress the reality of the Commonwealth from the point of view of the lawyer.
Initially this was largely a one-way traffic, decisions of the courts of this country being followed by courts in other Commonwealth countries and the legislation here being modified but followed in those countries. That position has now radically changed. The change constitutes one of the strengths of the Commonwealth. There is now a remarkable cross-fertilisation of ideas between judges of the higher courts of all of the Commonwealth countries. Today decisions of the courts of Australia, New Zealand and India —and, in view of the hopes expressed today by your Lordships, I add South Africa—are frequently cited to the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House and the Court of Appeal. We do not follow each other blindly, but we have learnt a great deal from each other and we have much to learn.
It is not only judicial decisions, the decisions of the courts which have contributed to this factor. In recent years there have been extensive exchanges between lawyers of the Commonwealth countries, through lectures and through writing. Occasionally British judges go out to Commonwealth countries and, increasingly, their judges come here. In recent months the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, the Presidents of the Courts of Appeal of New Zealand and New South Wales and a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada have participated in lecture programmes in this country. Again, it is not only the judges, but practising lawyers and academic lawyers are also actively engaged across the Commonwealth in the development of the common law as applied throughout the Commonwealth.
I recall a minute of a meeting of the law faculty at Cambridge last week. That minute records the names of five professors of law. It struck me this morning that two were Australian, one was a New Zealander and the other two were from South Africa.
The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in London runs courses for young Commonwealth lawyers and government legal advisers to strengthen links between the legal professions and legal services of the Commonwealth. The Nuffield Fund for Commonwealth Fellows at that institute and the Nehru scholarships from India at Cambridge do much to strengthen and spread the ideas and development of the common law.
All of these lawyers come together in the Commonwealth Law Conference, which is a splendid forum in which that process may develop. At a law
730
conference of the Commonwealth in Jamaica I remember the remarkable vitality of the discussion and the warmth of comradeship which existed.
However, at the pinnacle comes the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. At one time its jurisdiction was very extensive. In 1930 Norman Bentwich could write that,
"the sphere of jurisdiction in the Privy Council now encloses more than one quarter of the world".
The extent quantitatively has diminished and many of the major countries have abolished appeals; but appeals still come to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from a significant number of the Commonwealth countries. The opinions of the Judicial Committee—they are in the form of advice to Her Majesty in Council—have particular relevance to the developing jurisprudence even of those countries which do not allow appeals to the Judicial Committee. In some 60 appeals a year, a wide range of subjects, ranging from important constitutional matters down to issues involving landlords and tenants of modest property are considered by the Judicial Committee.
One may ask oneself the question. Does the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have a real role and a real future? One development indicates in part the answer. Some of the Commonwealth countries which after independence became republics could not continue to appeal to Her Majesty in Council. They decided to retain the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as a final court of appeal whether as of right or by leave. During the Recess I spoke at a conference on constitutional changes in islands in the Indian Ocean. I was very surprised by the interest of people who came from countries not in the Commonwealth in the role and function of the Privy Council. Certainly lawyers, judges, the chief justice and his colleagues who were there from Mauritius gave every indication that they found its existence useful and valuable.
The Judicial Committee provides a Supreme Court which is detached from the detail of local issues in which sometimes feelings may run high. It is a court with wide experience of the common law both here and in other Commonwealth countries. Its decision gives a cohesion, a uniformity, in matters of law which are common to the whole of the Commonwealth. It is a valuable feature of that committee that Privy Counsellors from other Commonwealth countries from time to time sit on the committee.
Finally, there is a new development which it is right to mention. Many of the Commonwealth countries have adopted written constitutions which include parts of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Judicial Committee has been much exercised with the interpretation and application of those written constitutions. I believe that its decisions have had a far reaching and important effect. It is only necessary to refer to our recent advice to Her Majesty in Council that it was inhuman punishment and treatment to keep persons on death row for long years and then to hang them. I believe that that advice will be looked at in states even outside the Commonwealth where executions are long delayed.

731
I believe that the role of the Commonwealth so far as concerns the law is today of great importance. Its future is inevitably subject to change but it is capable of being important in the future. I see the common law as the cement of the structure of the Commonwealth. The common law is enriched and developed by the contact which now exists between all kinds and conditions of lawyers. Long may it flourish.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Cheshanit: My Lords, at this stage of the debate it is difficult to come up with anything new so I do not plan to talk for long. I, too, congratulate and thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for braving the channels of your Lordships' House and moving the Motion before us today.
Having spent many years in the far reaches of the Commonwealth, I make no apology for my comments having a somewhat antipodean flavour. It is appropriate that the debate should be occurring two days after Anzac Day—the day of commemoration of the participation of Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli (on the side of what was to become the Commonwealth) and of the service of the men and women of those two countries in subsequent confrontations, large and small, in support of the ideals of the Commonwealth; a day of reminiscence and thanksgiving.
It is important in the debate that we look at the Commonwealth not only from the British point of view but from the purview of how the Commonwealth is seen from other Commonwealth countries.
I should like to clarify that I have absolutely no intention of addressing the republican issue in Australia, and now in New Zealand, which has been used as a politically expedient trick to divert minds away from real issues in those countries and which are in any case for those countries to determine individually. In Australia, which has a written constitution only capable of amendment by referendum, Her Majesty is Queen of Australia. This, therefore, has little relevance to the Commonwealth issue. In any case a number of members of the Commonwealth are republics, as has been frequently mentioned, and they are all happy that Her Majesty should be head, in which role she does such a wonderful job.
The extent of self-congratulation that we have heard in your Lordships' House today about the achievements of the Commonwealth glosses over the necessity for revitalisation of the institution in the public mind both in this country and in other Commonwealth countries. There are indeed misconceptions as to what are the role and activities of the Commonwealth. Steps must be taken for people to learn about the activities of the Commonwealth and what it means if it is to continue.
Other than the Commonwealth Games (which I am amazed have not been mentioned yet today but which give sports-mad Australians their best chance of seeing their athletes winning more medals than in the Olympics or world events, as also applies to other Commonwealth countries) I believe that most Australians today consider the Commonwealth anachronistic and of little value. I know that Australians are renowned for having chips on their shoulders, and at times it is difficult to understand
732
their attitudes. However, who decided to call Commonwealth passport holders aliens? Who decided to align its trade with near neighbours to the detriment of its traditional trading partners? Who restricted the free movement of Commonwealth citizens within its borders and then gave rights of free admission and residence to some 200 million non-Commonwealth citizens? It is totally wrong to dismiss the effect of Britain joining Europe.
The demise of the Commonwealth in its traditional role of trade and immigration—again, that has not been referred to today—is clearly placed at Britain's door 'via the European treaties. I am actively pro-Europe and do not believe that we had arty option other than to join Europe. But, equally, I believe that we should understand our responsibility for the diminution in the perceived value of the Commonwealth in other Commonwealth countries. If there is to be any of the traditional role of the Commonwealth in trade or immigration I do not see how there can be a role for Britain in the Commonwealth, bearing in mind its obligations elsewhere.
I see a role for a revamped Commonwealth. I believe it important for all members that that role should continue. We must enable the average person to understand what the Commonwealth stands for. Perhaps we should look for a new name for the Commonwealth and relaunch it, as it was launched years ago.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for introducing this debate on the role of the Commonwealth today. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that as one of the last speakers in the debate I find it extremely difficult to come up with something new, so I shall be brief. I apologise for being slightly repetitious at times.
Many of us in this country find it difficult to describe exactly what the Commonwealth stands for, yet its membership keeps growing. In 1944 when the Commonwealth was founded, it had five members. Now it has up to 50 member countries, the most recent being Namibia. Soon South Africa will be making its application to rejoin. The Cameroon is on hold until the next Commonwealth heads of government meeting in 1995. Former Portuguese colonies Mozambique and Angola and also Eritrea are knocking at the door. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and others have already said, more than a quarter of the world's population live in the Commonwealth, amounting to in excess of 1½ billion people. Twenty-four members have a population of less than 1 million each, while India, the largest member, has 832 million people. In its nearly 50-year history, only three countries have left; namely, South Africa in 1961, Pakistan in 1972, and Fiji in 1987. Pakistan has returned to the fold and I very much hope that South Africa will do so shortly.
One of the Commonwealth's strengths is its capacity to understand and grapple with the issue of diversity. That is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. This is a paradox in a post-Cold War world, where many countries have been split on ethnic issues while other

733
countries have committed themselves to setting enforceable international political standards. The international community's failure in Bosnia and Somalia should not obscure the fact that the world is moving inexorably towards a role as an international policeman, even if its present operational arm, the United Nations, is currently confused and erratic. Many believe that the Commonwealth could play a decisive role in the reform of the UN. A Commonwealth expert, Derek Ingram, was quoted recently as saying that major changes to the structure of the UN and the fundamental thinking about its response to conflict and the limits to sovereignty have to be faced sooner rather than later. He firmly believes that the Commonwealth could play this decisive role.
Although the Commonwealth suffers a poor image among many in Britain who consider it to be a relic of the empire, its popularity remains strong in Africa where poverty and isolation have led some countries to seek membership of a club which has influence. Some Commonwealth officials have said that a connection with the Crown is no longer a necessity, the only requirement being that the applicant member speaks English and that minimum standards of democracy are observed. As noble Lords have already mentioned, a central unifying issue over the past three decades has been a joint commitment to put pressure on South Africa to bring the country to non-racial democracy. I join the many who are delighted that today marks the day when at last free and fair elections are taking place in that country. Under the stewardship of the Secretary-General, the Commonwealth is continuing to play a vital role by providing observers to this election.
I have a particular interest in South Africa as I spent my youth there and still have many friends in the Cape. I hope that the Commonwealth will continue to play an important role in the new South Africa, where clearly the expectations of the majority for improved education, housing, health care and employment are extremely high. In 1976 education was made compulsory for white, coloured and Asian children from the ages of 7 to 16. However, for black children the ages ranged from seven to only 11. So it is not surprising that there is a high illiteracy rate among that group. There is a great deal of catching up to do in order to improve employment prospects for the future. I have to admit that I have some reservations as to whether, in the short term, these expectations can be met. But it is encouraging that a joint Commonwealth and United Nations conference will soon be held in South Africa on management and skills training.
With its sound and developed infrastructure, the success of South Africa, economically, politically and socially, will clearly play an important and vital role with regard to the prosperity and success for the recovery of the rest of Africa, which over the years has been savaged by civil war and famine. South Africa has much to gain by renewing her membership to our Commonwealth of Nations and by the same token she has much to offer the other 16 members of the African continent.
734
There have been many speakers in the debate. I accept that much of what I have said has already been covered by other noble Lords. But I should like to conclude by saying that I believe that the Commonwealth is a force for good, and long may it remain so. I look forward to the Minister's assurance of our continued support.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I am glad to have the privilege of following the only noble Baroness who has contributed to our debate. We are grateful to her. Perhaps I may add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for introducing this extremely useful debate after a long gap. As the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, said, 1990 was the last occasion of such a debate and there was an even longer gap before that. It is extremely timely that the debate should take place on this historic day. I was much impressed by the clarity and comprehensiveness with which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, sketched the outline of what the Commonwealth is today and what it is not.
I also wish to add my tributes to our two maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Wright and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. The former struck a note which has been common to most of the contributions this evening: the critical change that is taking place today with the emergence of a pluralist democratic South Africa. To my mind, it holds out the potential of changing the character of the political consultations of the Commonwealth in the years ahead. It seems to me that this is a necessary and overdue change.
The noble Lord, Lord Wright, referred to the three misconceptions about the nature of the Commonwealth. Those have been fed to some extent by the negative nature of much of the proceedings at the top level of consultations. Those in turn have derived from the shadow of apartheid and the South African problem, with the UK quite wrongly being regarded as the Aunt Sally. That has poisoned the whole atmosphere. We have now emerged from that and we can achieve a new, freer kind of relationship with our partners without any of those misconceived stigmata.
Before turning to the possibilities for the future, I wish to add my congratulations to the Commonwealth secretariat, and in particular our distinguished Secretary-General, who has made a personal contribution of a quite exceptional kind. I took the precaution of going to Marlborough House a month ago, with this debate in view. After nearly 40 years at the coal face of the conduct of Commonwealth relations in every different continent, I was literally amazed by the extent of the network of projects that have grown up under the secretariat's auspices in the past 20 or 30 years.
I do not suppose that many noble Lords have had the advantage that I have had as a result of my visit, of seeing the last report of the Secretary-General. It is an amazing document. But beneath the scale of the whole thing there lies what is to me the great asset of its having been conducted with a very low profile. That is important. It is important that the secretariat should remain a low profile affair. When it was set up, we in the Commonwealth Office hoped that it would be a useful,

735
practical, pragmatic, low profile organisation. Consequently, it has had very extraordinary practical results. But that does not mean to say that the Commonwealth should have a low profile. I endorse very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and other noble Lords have said; namely, that the time has now come for a more active political profile for the Commonwealth. One of the reasons why there has been such denigration and running down of the Commonwealth in the media is, I believe, because certain problems have dogged the high level consultations, especially at the heads of government meetings.
For many years—partly of course because of the shadow of South Africa—the heads of government meetings have had relatively little practical political impact, except in authorising and baptising what the secretariat has prepared and asked for authority to carry out. There are structural reasons for the relative failure of the political impact of those meetings, and for (let us face it) the derision that they have tended to attract. That derives from the inflation of the number of members of the Commonwealth.
The noble Baroness took us back at the start of her speech to the days when there were only five members of the Commonwealth. I remember taking part as a humble assistant to the Cabinet Secretary in the secretariat at one such meeting. The essence of the occasion was free and frank discussion, the free exchange of views. You cannot have that sort of thing in an assembly of 50 heads of government, with 50 or more officials milling round in the background. That is a parliament; it is not an intimate, free exchange. How can we get back, how can we restore, something of that extremely valuable asset that those small meetings used to have? They were a reality.
In 1990, in a debate in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, reminded us that there was reality in the discussions in those days; and there is an element of unreality in the recent discussions of heads of government. How do we get back to that? We need a restructuring. I suggest—and others will have their views—that we should set up a small inner group, a steering committee, which would meet for a day before all the other members arrived, consisting of the original older members and India, Pakistan, perhaps Nigeria, perhaps Malaysia, and perhaps one rotating member from the smaller countries. Let the substantial members of our group again have a small round table meeting where they can have a really frank discussion. Such a meeting would introduce and steer the proceedings of the subsequent meetings.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I offer my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on having opened this debate with power and eloquence. It has proved to be an extremely fascinating and wide-ranging debate, with various different insights into the value of the Commonwealth and a variety of different ideas as to how the present situation might be
736
improved—although I do not go along with the last contribution that was made. That idea is replete with difficulty and danger. But that is another matter.
During the course of the debate we have heard two former Commonwealth secretaries, a former permanent under-secretary, a head of the Diplomatic Service, a high commissioner, a former Father of the House of Commons, three noble Lords who have lived and worked in southern Africa and others from various parts of the Commonwealth. Not least, we had the very distinguished contribution from a Law Lord. We have had two quite remarkable maiden speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Wright, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. Very rightly, during the course of all that tributes were paid to the present Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. But it is also right that we should pay tribute to his very distinguished predecessor Sir Shridath Ramphal, who held office for so long and with great distinction.
This debate has given us the opportunity to reflect on the present and future role of the Commonwealth. We do that most particularly against the background of the extraordinary events that have taken place in South Africa. If we are looking for revitalisation—to use the word that was used by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham —it lies perhaps in the potential that the situation in South Africa will give to a specific role on the part of the Commonwealth.
We have witnessed a very remarkable collapse in a very short period of time of what seemed for so long to be an invincible regime which had debased a whole people, had disfigured the law in pursuit of the warped ambitions of those who believed in apartheid and had robbed the vast majority of people of dignity and self-respect. In its place we hope we shall see emerging a united nation, under the leadership, almost inevitably, of President Mandela—a man who spent 27 years in jail and whose return to the political scene has been marked by a quite extraordinary generosity of spirit towards those whose victim he had been. He has shown a determination to lead a new South Africa towards a peaceful and democratic future. I believe that to be little short of a miracle, even in an age of convulsive and miraculous political change such as we have witnessed in Europe and elsewhere.
While one cannot deny the immensity of the problems that confront the new South Africa—encapsulated not least in the horrendous, bestial acts of violence that we have seen over the past few days—today surely (a point which I think has been reflected in the debate here) we must all share in the rejoicing of the overwhelming majority, black and white, who are determined in their resolve to see a government of national unity, led by Mr. Mandela but with (up to now, and still) President de Klerk standing by his side. It will be a government who seek to consign the malignity of apartheid to the dustbin of history where it appropriately belongs.
Inevitably, some of today's euphoria will pass. Regrettably, I fear that some violence will almost certainly continue at the cost of more lives and dreadful injury. Overcrowding, intolerable housing conditions, dreadful levels of unemployment, food shortages, child

737
malnutrition and many other health problems will continue to scar life in the townships. Wholly inadequate health care, waste disposal and other environmental hazards will continue to blight those township dwellers. They will still have to walk miles to work and work unacceptable hours for low wages in poor conditions. That will go on today, tomorrow, the day afterwards and the following weeks—even perhaps for some years ahead. No doubt that may be accompanied by even more violence as part of the display of crude suspicions that still exist. Expectations of swift rescue from all those horrendous situations will not and cannot be fulfilled with ease. It is possible that some disillusion could follow. I fear that those are certain political realities.
But today there is a new quality and a new element in the lives of those who have suffered so much for so long. There is a new measure of hope. Hope existed before, often amid some disbelief, but it is now freshly and excitingly kindled. There is a belief that the problems, difficult though they may be, can be tackled if the spirit of today can linger on.
I believe that the Commonwealth is able to play a large part in enabling South Africa to achieve its potential for sustainable growth and pursue democratic values for the first time. I also believe, as the noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso and Lord Alport, said, that Britain has a pivotal role. But, in order to fulfil that role, we have the job of building up new relationships and new confidence. We have to display that we are capable of learning from the mistakes of the past.
Too easily too many in this country, in business and in politics, adopted the comfortable illusion that the evil system of apartheid would disappear if only economic growth somehow or other could be sustained, although it would perhaps take decades to effect such a radical change. So, under the government of Mrs. Thatcher, frequently the idea put forward by members of the Commonwealth and others that sanctions should be applied was resisted. Relatively minor concessions were applied, seeking to appease the force of world opinion.
Catastrophic misjudgments, compounded by deep prejudice, persuaded the British Government of that time to regard Chief Buthelezi as the answer to Mr. Mandela and the ANC. Indeed, there was even the vain hope, the ridiculous hope, that the ANC could be consigned to the sidelines. Let us remember the message given at the Commonwealth Conference in 1987 that the ANC was:
"a typical terrorist organisation … Anyone who thinks that the ANC is going to run the government in South Africa is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land".
That was the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in those days.
As we now know, the sanctions that she imposed played a decisive part in securing the radical changes that are now taking place. The virulence of the diseased germ of racism was underestimated and even ignored, as was the deep rumbling of discontent which was the thunder of the discontented masses of South Africa. Who, then, was living in cloud-cuckoo-land?
I believe that there is a change. Yesterday, I heard the
738
Prime Minister, Mr. Major, in the other place asserting, with obvious pleasure, that South Africa was facing a new future—a real future of hope. I believe that he said that passionately and sincerely. I hope that it will be evidenced by a change of heart, which I think is true now, on the part of this country. But to help achieve change and open a new chapter in our relationship with the new South Africa, we have to recognise the failures of the past. We must now seek to play a prominent role in assembling positive support for South Africa, not least through the European Union and the Commonwealth.
Today, in the context of this debate, we must concentrate on the Commonwealth. I believe that it is a remarkable association. Together with all noble Lords, I hope that membership will soon be extended to and accepted by South Africa. But what aid programmes have been contemplated? What technical and technological help or economic and financial assistance are to be provided by the Government? I understand that the Government have plans in place in concert with other members of the Commonwealth. It would be as well to have that on record in the course of this debate. Are the Government satisfied with the adequacy of the funding of the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation? How will the Government go about seeking to encourage inward investment from the United Kingdom into South Africa and increase trade with that country?
I turn briefly to some other issues which affect the Commonwealth. I have given notice to the Minister of some of the points that I want to make. In my judgment, and judging from most of the speeches that we have heard tonight, it is quite clear that the Commonwealth has a continuing value. It has gone through a history of decolonisation based largely on democratic principles. That point was made very effectively by my noble friend Lord Pitt. The strength of the influence of the Commonwealth is in its 1.5 billion people and 25 per cent. of the seats at the United Nations General Assembly. It has unparallelled links with the third world. I believe that it can play and has already played a crucial role in agreeing to and implementing the Lomé agreements with the European Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, poured scorn on the relationship between this country and the European Union. He said that it was incompatible with our role as a member of the Commonwealth. That view was echoed by others. I do not believe that to be the case. Not only are the Lomé agreements a complete counterclaim to that point; more emphatically—this was a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn—the bonding that is provided by the law, by the cross-fertilization of judgments and the meetings that go on among lawyers in the Commonwealth, including judges, has been of extreme importance and will continue to be so.
Despite some warts, many countries see the Commonwealth as a source of real good. It enjoys real prestige, notably in Africa. Hence, there is a clear desire on the part of countries such as Angola, the Cameroons and Mozambique to follow the path of Namibia in

739
seeking membership, albeit that none of them in the past was part of the British Empire. I should like to know from the Minister the current state of those applications.
Let me make a different point about Cyprus. So far, the Commonwealth and nobody else has succeeded in asserting the rights of Cyprus for independent sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity. United Nations' resolutions have been ignored and Turkish forces remain there. What is this country and the Commonwealth proposing to do to help to assert the rights of the Cypriots?
At the last Commonwealth meeting in 1993, the question of money laundering was raised. That matter was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. It was seen to be a threat to international financial systems. It was agreed that the Secretary-General and the appropriate Commonwealth Ministers should examine how best the 40 recommendations which were provided could be advanced by the Financial Action Task Force. What is happening? Also, what is happening about the idea that was then raised of an international criminal court? I believe it was mentioned at paragraph 46 of the recommendations.
Another point made by the same noble Lord in his maiden speech related to improved poverty alleviation measures associated with rural policies and programmes. I should like to hear from the Minister something about that also. I gave him specific notice of that point and I shall not embroider upon it now.
Little was said—though the noble Earl can be acquitted of any charge of that kind because he did refer to it—about the environment. That was another matter raised at the Commonwealth conference. In the wake of the Rio Conference it would be as well to know what the Government have in mind not only on their behalf, but also on what the Commonwealth is doing in that regard to embrace the ideas set up at that conference.
The Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation needs to be adequately resourced. There have been severe cuts in the budget. Is there any plan to restore those cuts ? Educational opportunities in Britain can win friends and lead to business opportunities in the future—a point made with force by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, during the course of his contribution.
Finally, I want to say a word about the Commonwealth Institute. I do not need to go into the argument again. We heard it put with great force by the noble Lord, Lord Braine. But it is as well to note that already 28 members of staff were made redundant this year and a further 16 recently received notice of redundancy. Three employees on fixed term contracts have not had them renewed. That is serious news. Surely this is a time when, above all, that institute is needed. I hope therefore that the Government will review the position in the light of what has happened in South Africa.
It was a privilege to participate in the debate and I congratulate once again the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on making it possible for us to debate these matters today.
8.12 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I found this evening's proceedings exceedingly interesting and valuable. Before I endeavour to answer as many of the points raised by your Lordships as time and your Lordships' patience will allow, perhaps I too may congratulate our two notable maiden speakers. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, even by the high standards of that great department of state, was an ornament to his position as Permanent Under-Secretary —a post he filled with the greatest of distinction. One only had to listen, as your Lordships did with the keenest attention, to what he had to say this afternoon to realise that he will be an equal ornament to your Lordships' House and we greatly look forward to hearing him on many future occasions. The patience of my noble friend Lord Courtown in sitting and listening to your Lordships for 15 years was a patience which was rather overdone, particularly in view of the remarkable contribution he made to our debate today. I too greatly look forward to listening to him over the coming weeks and not waiting another 15 years before he addresses your Lordships again.
Her Majesty's Government greatly welcomes this debate. I too congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, upon introducing it. I can only assume that his recent wedding has merely confirmed him in his attachment to the Commonwealth and I congratulate him on his good taste and political judgment.
I want to take this opportunity to reassure a number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord St.John, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Gridley, in particular—of our unequivocal support for what the Commonwealth can and does do to contribute to comity between nations. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, spoke for the whole House when he acknowledged the important role that the Commonwealth played. I am glad to find that all your Lordships agreed. I am grateful too for the opportunity to amplify to this House the ways in which we in the Government believe that the Commonwealth can best continue to do so in the future.
At this point I want particularly to support the noble Viscount in what he said regarding the priority that the Commonwealth can give to the needs of the smaller nations. I need not add in any way to what he said or., indeed, to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, in that regard. They seemed to me to more than fully cover the point. I want to emphasise also the point made with his unique authority by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, regarding the contribution of the Queen to the Commonwealth. It would clearly not be the institution it is today without her dedication. I know that that is appreciated by all other Commonwealth countries and I am delighted to find that from all parts of your Lordships' House appropriate tributes were paid to Her Majesty.
As a number of noble Lords observed, we last debated the Commonwealth in this House in 1990. As was observed also, the Prime Ministers' conferences in Harare in 1991 and in Limassol, Cyprus, last October

741
redressed the balance of Commonwealth activity from a disproportionate preoccupation with South Africa and sanctions towards assisting accountable government throughout the Commonwealth. Naturally we greatly welcome that change. It shows how the Commonwealth has adapted and can adapt. I was delighted that so many noble Lords stressed the importance of that ability to adapt as a characteristic fundamental to the continued existence of the Commonwealth. I suggest that it is a quality that has been one of the Commonwealth's hallmarks since 1947, when it adopted its modern form to allow India as a republic to join. Naturally, too, I agree wholly with what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and my noble friend Lord Braine said: that to be effective and useful the Commonwealth needs first to live up to its own principles. There are exceptions but, by and large, that is what it is increasingly now doing.
I was particularly interested by the account given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, of the activities of the Judicial Committee and the important part it still plays, and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Beloff regarding legal traditions, which were entirely complementary to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, said. Surely, too, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, and others about the activities of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association are also complementary in this regard, for the CPA is a vital part of the machinery for keeping those traditions in the order in which they deserve to be kept.
I took careful note of the observations made by noble Lords in their speeches and shall endeavour to come to them a little later. If I may, I should like to tell noble Lords a little of what we in Her Majesty's Government are contributing both to collective Commonwealth endeavours and to individual Commonwealth countries. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and to my noble friends Lord Courtown and Lord Selkirk that we are doing fully our fair share. I was particularly grateful in that regard to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that he considered that the Commonwealth expenditure is wholly cost effective. From such a distinguished economist that is a judgment on which we can surely rely.
We are the largest contributor to the Commonwealth Secretariat and provide 30 per cent. of its funding. We also provide 30 per cent. of the funding for the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation—of which more anon—and that amounts to nearly £7 million a year. In fact, about 65 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to Commonwealth countries. We provide over £14 million a year for Commonwealth scholarships. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong—who I know cannot be here this evening—will take note of that fact (as if he did not know it already). We contribute generously to the Commonwealth Foundation which funds Commonwealth professional and other nongovernmental organisations. We provide Marlborough House for the Commonwealth Secretariat, and noble Lords will have observed that it was recently renovated at considerable expense. We would like to do more, but it is right to point out that Commonwealth organisations
742
and Commonwealth developing countries have a special place in our priorities. Nevertheless, I clearly hear the message from a number of noble Lords that the Commonwealth needs to evolve. And that, I am sure, it will do.
I should like to answer a number of the specific points put to me before I come to what perhaps has been the dominating theme of the debate today, and dominating for very understandable reasons. I refer to the question of South Africa. If I do not have time to cover all the matters raised, I hope noble Lords will forgive me and will allow me to write to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked me about new applicants. Cameroon has applied. The application is so far on hold. Mozambique and Angola have not applied. Their applications have been talked about. As your Lordships will know, whether to apply for membership of the Commonwealth is entirely a matter for the countries concerned. Equally, of course, it is for the Commonwealth collectively to decide whether they should be allowed to join.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also asked about Cyprus. I could speak at some length on this tedious, I sometimes feel, but extremely important subject—tedious only because it has been going on for such a long time. The package of confidence-building measures proposed by the United Nations Secretary General which is currently the subject of talks in Cyprus would bring important benefits to both communities. Both sides have accepted the package in principle. The Greek Cypriot leader, President Clerides, has accepted the United Nations proposals for implementing the package. Unfortunately, the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash, continues to have objections to certain aspects of the United Nations plan. We have urged him to adopt a more constructive approach to the negotiations and indeed have urged the Turkish Government to press Mr. Denktash to the same effect. The Secretary General is due to report to the Security Council of the United Nations at the end of this month. At that stage the Council will have to decide how to proceed. If the Turkish Cypriot side has continued to object to the United Nations plan, the Security Council will have to consider alternative ways of ensuring the implementation of the United Nations resolutions on Cyprus. However, in the context of this debate, your Lordships will also remember that all Cypriots are members of the Commonwealth, on whichever side of the green line they happen to live. That may be of some help in the context of the negotiations to which I have referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friend Lord Courtown asked me about money laundering. This important question was covered at the recent Commonwealth heads of government meeting. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister launched a major initiative to encourage all Commonwealth members to take steps to criminalise money laundering and to protect their banking and financial sectors. We have been greatly encouraged by the response. Heads of government at the meeting agreed to work towards implementation of the 40 recommendations of the financial action task force,

743
which was set up by the G7 summit as long ago as 1989. I believe that the Commonwealth, particularly through the Secretariat's commercial crime unit, is ideally placed to advance this work and naturally we are working extremely closely with it.
The international criminal court was discussed at the Limassol meeting and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, observed, was covered in paragraph 46 of the communiqué. We believe it is a good idea in principle. The United Nations is looking at what I am told is called in the trade the modalities of this. I think your Lordships will agree that we need to proceed by general agreement if it is to work. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, agrees.
I should like to confirm Her Majesty's Government's continuing support for the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. In the financial year 1994–95 we expect to make a similar contribution to that made in 1993–94, which amounted to some £6.2 million. At this stage we cannot make any commitments about future years but I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that there appears to be no question of additional funds at the moment. Perhaps I may emphasise to your Lordships that the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation should demonstrate that its programmes give value for money. I suspect that some redefinition of existing priorities may be needed. Nevertheless, we enormously value the work of the Commonwealth Youth Programme and we commend the new strategies for addressing youth problems in economic, political and cultural areas that they contain.
The noble Lords., Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Pitt, mentioned the question of poverty alleviation. I should like to confirm that the reduction of poverty is central to the purpose of our overseas aid in low income countries. All our priority objectives are therefore concerned with poverty reduction. In 1992–93 some £58 million, or 10 per cent. of our bilateral aid, was targeted on direct poverty reduction. That figure rises to more than 25 per cent. if humanitarian assistance is included as well. If one includes the indirect effects of all our aid, much more than that figure is implicated in this area. It is important that governments should include poverty reduction measures in their planning. We have been helping with the development of social policies in a number of Commonwealth countries, including Ghana, Malawi and Tanzania, to give just three examples.
I was particularly pleased, if only in my capacity as the Ministry of Defence's green Minister, that my noble friend Lord Courtown and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned the environment. The United Kingdom is committed to global environmental assistance. That has been evidenced by our contribution of £130 million to the global environment facility and of £27 million to the Montreal Protocol fund to help developing countries reduce CFCs. The United Kingdom is also working closely with other Commonwealth countries on environmental issues. Perhaps I may give two examples. First, we have the forest management agreement with Malaysia. Secondly, we have made a £60 million grant to India for energy efficiency and pollution control and there are some environmental forestry projects as well. Perhaps it is
744
also worth mentioning, in view of the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on this matter, that the United Kingdom is taking part in negotiations for a convention on desertification as well.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, my noble friend Lord Braine, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and, particularly in view of his involvement in the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, mentioned the question of the Commonwealth Institute.I must emphasise that Her Majesty's Government emphatically do not want to see the institute close. The decision to withdraw our grant-in-aid after March 1996 was taken with great reluctance against a tight Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget. What we want to see is the institute using the fine building in Kensington High Street, which was provided by the Government, to continue to promote the Commonwealth, but drawing after 1996 on non-government funds to do it. I know that many of the institute's supporters feel that its facilities and programmes could still have a useful function. The Foreign Office is giving the institute a full grant for the next two financial years to enable the institute to develop its relaunch programme. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, for his description of the way it is responding to what is a difficult challenge and I am only sorry that my answer will disappoint so many of your Lordships who have lobbied so hard and so passionately for what I know is an important institution.
A number of noble Lords also mentioned the question of trade. My noble kinsmen Lord! Acton and Lord Harlech made extraordinarily interesting speeches in which they made powerful points on this subject. It is worth mentioning rather than boring your Lordships more than I usually do on what is a highly complex and difficult subject, that, as my noble kinsman Lord Harlech said in his inimitable way, many Commonwealth countries are net agricultural exporters so that they will benefit from the greater stability in world markets for food and agricultural products which will flow from the completion of the Uruguay Round. I underline the statement of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that the developing world earns three times as much from trade as from aid. Therefore developing countries in the Commonwealth will also benefit from the boost to world trade that the Uruguay Round will bring.
I was also extremely interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Alport and his suggestion for regional conferences. As I am sure he knows, such conferences have been tried in the past. They may be worth reviving. Perhaps the heads of government could discuss his suggestion at their meeting in Auckland in November 1995.As regards the interesting idea of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for a steering committee, I am not sure how popular it would be with other members of the Commonwealth. I am sure that he does not need me to remind him that senior officials meet every off-year to propose an agenda for the following year' s meeting. That may give him some comfort. Such a meeting might be an opportunity to perform the sort of work that the noble Lord suggested.

745
After a period when Rhodesia and South Africa distorted priorities, as many noble Lords have mentioned this evening, we see the Commonwealth as having reverted to its earlier and more rewarding character. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary put it extraordinarily well in his speech, "The Commonwealth and a Changing World", to the English Speaking Union last October. He said:
"It would be exceptionally stupid now to let the Commonwealth gather dust in a museum when there is a new task staring it in the face".
I detect that a number of your Lordships probably agree pretty fully with those sentiments. My right honourable friend went on to say:
"good governance and democracy cannot be imposed by imperial means".
No doubt he had in mind the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, when my right honourable friend said,
"Democracy must be home grown. But if we cannot impose democracy by imperial powers, we do need ways of persuading countries to live by democracy".
I believe that the sentiments expressed by my right honourable friend are all characteristics of the Commonwealth and that is perhaps where its tasks for the 1990s could usefully lie.
I was particularly pleased by the tributes which a number of your Lordships made. I refer to my noble kinsman Lord Acton, the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in particular as regards the tributes which they paid to the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, whose diplomatic skills and strong sense of the value of the Commonwealth have been used to the benefit of a great many Commonwealth countries over the past four years. He has played a major part in putting the Commonwealth on to a new track. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, also acknowledged his contributions in that respect.
Nowhere can the Commonwealth make a greater impact than in Africa. Very understandably, a large number of your Lordships who have spoken this evening referred to the dramatic events which have been occurring over the past few days and which continue to occur in South Africa. They paid tribute to the contribution from your Lordships' House and the other place of observers of the election as part of the very large team of observers. There are over 100 official observers from the United Kingdom, including five Commonwealth and 20 parliamentary taking part in the international observation exercise. Naturally we hope that they and others will give the necessary support to the election process.
I was particularly struck by the remarks made by a number of your Lordships, particularly from the noble Lords, Lord Desai, Lord Thomson and Lord St. John of Bletso, about the capacity of South Africa to influence the development of sub-Saharan Africa to become the "economic motor" of the continent. That is a view to which I emphatically subscribe. It is for that reason that we have tried to target our aid so carefully. Here I come to the question which I was asked a little earlier by the
746
noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Our aid to South Africa is substantial and increasing. We spent £11.7 million last year and this could rise to £15 million this year. The United Kingdom share of EC aid under the positive measures programme amounts to about £11 million. This point was made by a number of noble Lords; namely, the projects were planned and implemented directly with community groups and non-government organisations.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, that some 55 per cent. of our aid programme to South Africa is spent on education. We fund about 1,000 black South Africans on courses in the United Kingdom and in South Africa. We have projects as well in the fields of health, agriculture and small business development. Poverty reduction is a priority. I was particularly interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, about distance learning. We acknowledge that there is an increasingly important role for that, particularly in increasing education opportunities within the Commonwealth developing countries. We are considering future support, but we are not in a position to decide yet. I am sure that your Lordships' interest will have stimulated interest in what we have done.
Perhaps I may add a couple of points about South Africa. A number of your Lordships have emphasised the importance which they attach to South Africa rejoining the Commonwealth. I have no doubt whatever that an application from the new government to rejoin would be met with a willing and warm welcome. I hope that that application will not be long in coming. We greatly look forward to voting for the readmission of the new South Africa into the Commonwealth.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, mentioned military assistance. At the moment we have seven military personnel, including a military coordinator and two policemen, with the Commonwealth peacekeeping advisory group. They are helping in training the national peacekeeping force. I hope that the best traditions and the fine achievements of the British Armed Forces will make a distinguished contribution to the introduction of new methods of government and management of armed forces in that country.
At the risk of appearing unduly in a sucking-up mode to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, perhaps I may end by referring again to what he said in his speech last October. In particular I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. John, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, will agree with what my right honourable friend observed. He said that there are some who would dismiss the Commonwealth as a legacy of the past. He went on:
"I do not disagree with the description. But legacies from the past can often be strengths in the present. Britain—its people, its government, its companies—would not have a global view without that legacy. Nor would the Commonwealth have the potential to play its part in consolidating democracy in the world without its legacy of post-colonial friendship between nations who happen, by chance, to have shared histories".
I believe that the warm approval which your Lordships have given this evening to the future health, prosperity and success of the Commonwealth in the developing and rapidly changing world in which we live, will give a great boost to all of us who are keen that

747
the Commonwealth should not be consigned to the dustbin of history. For that reason I thank your Lordships very kindly for the contributions which you have made during the course of today's debate.
8.39 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, this has been a most informative debate and many interesting points have been raised. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed and my colleagues on the Cross Benches, without whose support today's debate could not have taken place.
I should like to excuse myself for not summarising individual contributions, first because that has been admirably done by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for which I thank them, but also in part because of the late hour. However, I should like to single out for praise the two excellent maiden speeches.
It was fitting that we in this House should have considered this important matter in such depth. It is without surprise that we have heard a broad consensus of support for the Commonwealth. It cannot be overlooked that much needs to be done, however. I trust that our friends around the world will consider what has been said here today and realise that we in Great Britain do care.
Her Majesty the Queen, as Head of the Commonwealth and symbol of free nations, whose guiding influence has matured the Commonwealth, identified in her Commonwealth Day message the essence of the matter:
"Our lives are a race we have to run. Sometimes the track is rough and, if we are running on our own, it can look like an impossible obstacle course, but by helping each other along we can make it an easier and fairer race … We can combine our resources and abilities to make life better for everyone. That is indeed a prize worth winning".
I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Treasure Bill [H.L.]
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Treasure Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 2 [Meaning of "treasure"]:
The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("200") and insert ("300").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I said on Report that it probably seemed wise to have the age of coins and the age of objects in parallel in the Bill. At that time, the Bill stated that coins 300 years old should have to be reported, but the provision was only 200 years for other objects. I even went to far as to say that it looked as
748
though 200 years was almost within our memory, but I now move an amendment that 300 years should be the requirement.
Some noble Lords may have noticed that in Clause 2(1) (c) the provision remains 200 years. That is because the Secretary of State, who has those powers, may want to change the requirement to a later date in the light of experience. I should add that I think that that is most unlikely. I say that lest your Lordships think that that provision of 200 years remains in the Bill by mistake. I beg to move
On Question, amendment: agreed to.
Clause 3 [Jurisdiction of coroners]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("trove").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the word "trove", which I seek to leave out of the provisions, is, I believe, unnecessary and misleading. It does not appear in the Coroners Act 1988, except in a side note which is not part of the law. Indeed, the word "trove" is not mentioned in that context anywhere in the Coroners Act 1988. As I have said, as it would be not only unnecessary but misleading to include it in the Bill, I accordingly beg to move.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I should like to raise a matter relating to the difference between "treasure trove" and "treasure". I hope that if I put a modest query to my noble friend the Minister, she will be able to put my mind at rest. As I read the Bill, Clause3 refers to the jurisdiction of coroners ceasing in relation to treasure trove. Clause 1(6) refers to the Crown's right to,
"any treasure trove found after the commencement",
of the legislation, implying that the concept of "treasure, trove" continues. I should be grateful if my noble friend could first assure me—and place it on the record—that, in fact, the practical effect of the Bill is to put an end to the law of treasure trove as it currently applies.
My second point, which is closely related, is that Clause 2(1) (d) states that,
"any object…which would have been treated as treasure trove if found before the commencement of",
this legislation should be treated as "treasure". That means that all existing "treasure trove" definition would be subsumed within the new definition of "treasure". However, Clause 2(1) (d) also refers to,
"any object not within paragraphs (a) to (c)".
Paragraph (a) refers to a "coin" and paragraph (b) refers to,
"any object (not being coin)".
That is drawing a distinction between an object and a coin. Furthermore, Clause 2(8) states:
"'artefact' includes a coin and any part of an artefact",
but "object" is not stated to include a "coin".
Unless it is absolutely clear that an object in Clause 2(1) (d) includes coins, it is conceivable that certain discoveries which would currently be defined as "treasure trove" would still be "treasure trove" or at least would not be redefined as "treasure". I hope that my noble friend might be able to comment on that point. She has an encyclopedic knowledge of the details of the Bill and may be able to help me immediately. If not, I shall be content if she will write to me about it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if I may deal first with my noble friend Lord Renton, in whose name Amendment No. 2 stands, I am grateful to him for his explanation of it. As he knows, I have reservations about his approach on this point, but I do not want to introduce an element of discord into our harmonious proceedings at this late hour and, at this late hour, if it is the wish of your Lordships that this amendment be accepted, I shall not seek to stand in your Lordships' way.
I turn now to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Stewartby. I am happy to confirm to him that the effect of Clause 1(6) is to abolish "treasure trove". The effect of the Bill is to replace treasure trove with a new statutory concept of treasure. The purpose of Clause 2(1) (d) is not to continue treasure trove in any form but to ensure that from now on any object which would have been treasure trove but for the Bill will now be treasure. Secondly, my noble friend Lord Stewartby questioned whether there was any significance in the fact that "artefact" is defined as including a coin whereas there is no corresponding definition of "an object". I am happy to confirm that the word "object" is wide enough to include coin without the need for further definition. Where it is intended that coins should not be treated as any other object, the Bill makes express provision, as in Clause 2(1) (b). I am conscious that I am surrounded by legal eagles. I will write to the whole lot of you if anyone wishes for further information on those points.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may in reply —I have a right of reply as I moved the amendment —say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lady Trumpington. Quite frankly, my amendment is a simple drafting one. It is wonderfully simple, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Duty of finder of treasure to notify coroner.]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
An amendment (Privilege) made.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
I shall say just a brief word on the Bill's history. It has had a long period of gestation. I wish again to thank all those who played their part in its birth. I have not mentioned before Lady Hanworth of the Surrey Archaeological Society. She has been involved from the very start. She was present at innumerable meetings and consultations when we were putting the Bill into shape. I know that she rejoices in its passing, but by a curious coincidence she has today another cause for rejoicing: it is her 54th wedding anniversary. I say to her and to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth: on to the diamond!
What else should I say about the Bill? It started as a weakly child, but suddenly it flourished when the welcome support of the Department of National Heritage was announced by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on Second Reading. She said that the Bill's paramount objective was to encourage the reporting of finds and to discourage wrong behaviour. In this, archaeologists and metal detectorists both have
750
their part to play. I met Mr. Wells, chairman of the National Council for Metal Detecting, a little while ago. After our meeting, I received a letter which said:
"We are particularly appreciative of your concern that responsible metal detection is not adversely affected by the Bill".
I confirm that again most strongly. Also, of course, landlords have a place in this Bill for the first time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Perth.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say briefly how much your Lordships and the whole of England and Wales owe to my noble friend Lord Perth. Tonight is the climax of several years of endeavour on his part to protect our heritage, and to prevent the disappearance of masses of valuable and fascinating evidence going back even earlier than the bronze age.
I shall say a quick word about people with metal detectors. They have unearthed a good deal of such evidence and have, as my noble friend said, mostly been responsible and helpful in ensuring that their finds go to museums. But the Bill would have been necessary even if the metal detector had never been invented.
Finally, I wish to join in thanking my noble friend Lady Trumpington and her advisers for the rapid way in which they have made improvements to the Bill. Despite what my noble friend Lord Stewartby said, I am convinced that the Bill is workable. Any Bill can be drafted in several different ways. This way is as good as any.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Donoughue, who is unavoidably absent, has asked me to tell the House, first, that he regrets not being here and, secondly, that he wishes the Bill well. He also wants me to congratulate the Minister and her colleagues on accepting the good sense of what the House was trying to do. If what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has been doing is to bring in more control, then we are in favour of "Perth control" of this kind. I wish the Bill well.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister rises, in case the words of my noble friend Lord Renton conveyed sentiments that I did not mean to express, I should say that I felt that it would be helpful if my noble friend the Minister could clarify the rather arcane point about the future status of treasure trove and assure us that the Bill not only discontinued treasure trove but that in a technical sense it was, indeed, workable. I was not intending to cast aspersions on it. Perhaps I may also pay tribute to her for the way in which she has conducted the Bill, and, of course, to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for his enormous achievement in bringing the Bill to such a successful conclusion in your Lordships' House after many years.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, at this stage I feel rather like a midwife, called in by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for the birth of his baby. There has been the most remarkable degree of support for the Bill in all parts of the House. I am delighted that the Government have been able to offer support and that the debates at each stage have been so constructive. That is a great

751
tribute to the way in which the Bill has been handled by the noble Earl and to the support that he has received from his colleagues, particularly my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Renfrew, who have both made extremely valuable contributions to our debate. I know that your Lordships will join with me in wishing the Bill a safe passage through the other place.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I am told that I have the right to reply to what has just been said by your Lordships and by the Minister. I want to say just two things. I wish to thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who have supported the Bill at various times during its history. It shows how much we all care about the past and, in particular, about the tangible past which is what we have been dealing with. We should say thank you also to the media. They have given the whole issue prominence. That makes people realise how important treasure can be to our history.
Finally, I, and I am sure all of your Lordships, hope that the Bill will go smoothly through another place. There it will be in good hands. I ask that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

The Judiiciary: Independence
9 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, given the documents placed by the Lord Chancellor in the Library of the House concerning the differences arising during the period 1991 to 1993 between him and the then President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Mr. Justice Wood, on the proper procedures for dealing with notices of appeal to that Tribunal, they are satisfied that the independence of the judiciary has been upheld.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate is not of narrow interest to lawyers and judges alone. It is about the fundamental principle, vital for all, that the courts are wholly independent of the Executive. Our constitution, largely unwritten, is firmly based on the separation of powers. Parliament makes laws; the judiciary interprets and applies them. Thus, the fundamental principle is that the courts must be wholly independent of the Executive. I am confident that the noble and learned Lord would be the firm to affirm that fundamental principal.
For too long there have been murmurings, and much more, that the noble and learned Lord transgressed that principle between late 1991 and 1993, in his dealings with Mr. Justice Wood, a High Court judge and president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal—the EAT. Sir John Wood was president from March 1988 until 30th September 1993. The allegation—I em-phasise allegation—is that the Lord Chancellor put Sir John under pressure by threatening loss of the presidency if he did not depart from the EAT's judicial practice in certain cases of having preliminary oral hearings before deciding whether those cases could go forward to a full appeal.
Perhaps I may give the short background. The EAT was established in 1976. It hears appeals from industrial
752
tribunals only on questions of law, not on questions of fact; for example, whether the tribunal applied statute or case law correctly. However, a contention that the tribunal below arrived at a perverse decision on the facts, one at which no reasonable tribunal could have arrived, is a question of law so the EAT has jurisdiction.
The EAT deals with appeals in cases of unfair dismissal, redundancy, race and sex discrimination and equal pay. Complex questions of statute and case law, as well as European law, often arise.
The EAT is governed by statutory' rules. Rule 3 provides that,
"where it appears to the Registrar that the grounds of appeal stated in the notice of appeal do not give the EAT jurisdiction"
the Registrar is to inform the appellant: that the appeal cannot proceed. The appellant can have a second bite of the cherry with a new notice. If the registrar remains of the same view, the appellant can insist on the papers going before the president or judge for his direction.
The real problem arises with doubtful notices where it is unclear whether they do or do not state a point of law. In practice, there are many doubtful notices, not least because many appeals to the EAT are by appellants who do not qualify for legal aid, particularly after the recent eligibility cuts and, therefore, are unrepresented.
Successive eminent presidents of the Employment Appeal Tribunal took the view that there were three categories of notice of appeal: first, those which clearly state a point of law and therefore went forward automatically to a full hearing; secondly, those where the grounds stated were clear and also clearly did not raise a point of law, so that the appeal was stopped dead in its tracks without any preliminary hearing; and, thirdly, the doubtful case in which it was not possible to tell one way or another from the document and a preliminary oral hearing was needed to decide. That was reflected by practice directions of successive presidents over the years prescribing a preliminary oral hearing to decide whether those doubtful cases did or did not disclose a point of law so that the appeal could go forward to a full appeal.
I return to the allegation. On Monday 21st March there was a Starred Question on the subject in your Lordships' House in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The relevant correspondence between Sir John and the Lord Chancellor was hot available to the House. Thus, many of your Lordships must have found it difficult, if not impossible, to follow the exchanges.
Plainly, on 3rd April the Observer was not under that disadvantage. On that Sunday it published, on a main news page, a long article quoting extensively from the correspondence covering the period 18th December 1992 until 23rd April 1993. The headline was:
"Revealed: How Lord Mackay misled Parliament."
The allegation was that that correspondence showed that his answers to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, were misleading.
That correspondence was then in the public domain. No denial or rebuttal was made. The Observer did not revert to the allegations on the next Sunday, 10th April, and so, on 12th April, I wrote at length to the noble and learned Lord suggesting that the appropriate course was

753
to put the whole of the correspondence in the Library so that thereafter, the matter could be fully ventilated with knowledge of the correspondence, and hopefully then laid to rest.
He readily agreed, but on the basis that this was a special case. The whole of the relevant documentation, from 13th December 1991 to 5th July 1993, was put in the Library of both Houses and it was the wish of the noble and learned Lord and myself that this debate take place with the least delay so that the air would be cleared.
It is as well that this debate takes place tonight. There appeared in last Friday's New Law Journal a lengthy attack on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor by Sir Francis Purchas, a retired Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal. The allegation was, as far I am aware, unprecedented against any Lord Chancellor, certainly from such a source. It was that the noble and learned Lord had failed in his attempt to persuade Mr. Justice Wood,
"to follow a legal course which to the Lord Chancellor's knowledge was contrary to his judicial oath";
with his persuasion backed up by an unconstitutional threat that, if he did not yield, he had to "consider his position", meaning at least as President of the EAT; and with the Lord Chancellor's action said to be inspired by,
"a Treasury driven policy to achieve savings at any cost."
I repeat that it is as well that this debate takes place tonight.
I now turn to the documents placed in the Library. Included with them is documentation between 13th December 1991 and 9th July 1992, of which I had no knowledge when writing to the Lord Chancellor. He appears to have drawn from that material the conclusion that either Rule 3(2) was not being implemented at all or not being fully implemented. I refer to the letters of 11th March and 18th December 1992 with which no doubt the noble and learned Lord will deal.
In my letter I gave the noble and learned Lord full notice of the questions which in my opinion arose from the correspondence commencing with his letter of 18th December 1992. In that letter the noble and learned Lord urged Sir John,
"to make more use of the filter provided by Rule 3 of your procedural rules;"
and continued:
"I wish to ensure that public money is not wasted on preliminary hearings in cases where there is no point of law shown in the notice of appeal. I am disappointed to note that you are still making little use of the power which Rule 3 gives you to reject notices which in your opinion show no point of law to give the tribunal jurisdiction to register the appeal".
There was then a meeting between them on Monday, 1st February 1993, followed by a letter from Sir John of 3rd February 1993 recording that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was of the opinion that the EAT's "preliminary hearing procedures" were probably ultra vires the Rules. I ask: was that the noble and learned Lord's view at the time?
In his letter of 5th February 1993 the noble and learned Lord said that he did not accept that preliminary hearings should be used as a process to discover whether there was a point of law at issue not disclosed in the notice of appeal. However, that is precisely what
754
preliminary hearings in doubtful cases were and are designed to ascertain. I invite the noble and learned Lord to say whether he accepted at the time, and accepts now, the appropriateness of preliminary hearings in such doubtful cases. Was he saying that a decision had always to be made on paper—yes or no to the question of whether the appeal could go forward—so that there should never be a preliminary hearing? That letter concluded:
"There is an urgent need to address the growing backlog of cases and I would be grateful if you would write to me with your assurance that you intend implementing Rule 3 in full before the end of this Term".
On 5th March 1993 Sir John wrote a detailed letter setting out his view of the correct legal position under Rule 3, after consultation with some senior judicial colleagues who endorsed his view. In his letter, Sir John distinguished three situations. The first is where the grounds stated in the notice of appeal do disclose a point of law; secondly, where the grounds of appeal stated in the notice of appeal do not give the EAT jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, in which case Sir John confirmed that the Registrar applied Rule 3 in accordance with its terms; and, thirdly, where the grounds of appeal are stated in a way which leaves the Registrar uncertain whether they raise grounds of law or not. That analysis corresponds with the practice directions of successive presidents of the EAT over the years.
Sir John explained that the preliminary procedure had been applied by Mr. Justice Phillips, the first president of the EAT, from 1977 to these ambiguous cases (category 3) and that, thereafter, the procedure had been so applied by successive presidents, two of whom are now Law Lords—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Slynn and Lord Browne-Wilkinson. Thus, Sir John was setting out the reasons why he and other presidents were of the view that the EAT was empowered to apply the preliminary procedure as the only fair means of determining whether an ambiguous notice of appeal did or did not disclose an arguable point of law.
The key letter is the reply of the noble and learned Lord of 19th March 1993. It did not challenge Sir John's assurance that the EAT was applying Rule 3, and was rejecting, without preliminary hearing, notices of appeal which were not in the doubtful category because they clearly did not state grounds of law giving the EAT jurisdiction. In other words, the EAT was rejecting, without preliminary hearing, such notices. The letter from the noble and learned Lord said:
"I was, frankly, disappointed by your reply to my letter of 5th February following our meeting on the first. I did not seek further discussion of Rule 3"—
I emphasise those words
"but had sought to make it clear to you that I was not prepared to accept preliminary hearings being held where Rule 3 provides a cheap and expeditious procedure for final disposal of a purported appeal.
I ask you again for your immediate assurance that Rule 3 is henceforth to be applied in full and that preliminary hearings are not being used where no jurisdiction is shown in a notice of appeal".
The letter ended with the words:
"If you do not feel that you can give me that assurance, I must ask you to consider your position".
I emphasise that sentence.
The third and fourth paragraphs of that letter have been read by many as a rejection of the opinion of Sir John Wood and other presidents of the EAT, made in their judicial capacities, that the EAT is entitled to consider at a preliminary hearing whether an ambiguous notice of appeal discloses a ground of law.
It is at that point that the independence of the judiciary arises. For myself, I would be disposed to accept—others may disagree—that a Lord Chancellor is entitled to satisfy himself that any court is having regard to all its powers and duties for the efficient disposal of its business and is applying and fulfilling them in accordance with its own judicial interpretation of them. However, what a Lord Chancellor is not entitled to do is to demand that a judge or court substitute for its own judicial view of the extent of its powers and duties the extra-judicial views of the Lord Chancellor. I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say whether he agrees with those propositions; and to make clear the powers he conceives that he has—and had, in relation to Sir John Wood—and how those powers arise.
The noble and learned Lord made it plain in this key letter that he was disappointed by Sir John's reasoned letter of 5th March 1993 and that he had not been seeking further discussion of Rule 3. He concluded, as I said, that if he felt unable to give the assurance that he, the Lord Chancellor, was requiring he, the Lord Chancellor, must ask him to consider his position. What is being said of this letter is that since he had rejected Sir John's letter of 5th March, on the basis that he had not been seeking further discussion of Rule 3, he could not have been inviting just such a discussion by asking him "to consider his position". Yet the explanation the noble and learned Lord gave in the House on 21st March 1994 of that passage in his letter was that he,
"wished to ascertain on what basis a procedure not applying that rule in full might properly rest".—[Official Report, 21/3/94; col. 498.]
The difficulty that the Observer and others experience with that answer is that the noble and learned Lord already had Sir John's full reasons, explaining the EAT's interpretation of Rule 3 and that it was being fully applied, in his letter of 5th March 1993, of which the Lord Chancellor had written in his reply of 19th March, that he was not seeking further discussion of Rule 3. Thus, the point is made that the key letter reads not as an invitation for further discussion or explanation of his views but rather as a demand that the President of the EAT comply with the Lord Chancellor's interpretation of Rule 3 contrary to his own view, and that of successive presidents of the EAT, in relation to the EAT's powers.
It is clear how seriously Sir John took that insistence that he "consider his position" because in his interim reply of 7th April he wrote:
"your letter raises a constitutional issue in such stark form that I wish to take time before replying".
When he did reply in full, on 23rd April 1993, he wrote:
"It is essential to accept the background to our work—we are exercising a difficult and delicate jurisdiction on the fringe of politics. There is a mixed lay and legal input. It is so important that we should at all times seek to achieve the balance between judicial formalism—so easily perceived as arbitrary and arrogant —and the need to allow a degree of flexibility in dealing with the members of the public, who are not familiar with the law or its
756
processes; who are not able to express themselves on paper; who are deeply and emotionally involved in their cases; and whose cases merit investigation. In many cases the appellants are acting in person because they do not fall within the scope of Legal Aid".
Sir John concluded:
"I have, of course, given the most serious consideration to my position as you required of me. You have demanded that I exercise my judicial function in a way which you regard as best suited to your Executive purposes, but I have to say that in all the circumstances that present themselves to me and in the light of the existing law, I cannot regard compliance with your demand as conducive to justice".
The question that is being asked is whether, by requiring him to "consider his position" if he did not give the assurance required, what was being said was that he should consider his position as president of the EAT.
The private secretary of the noble and Darned Lord acknowledged that letter by a letter of 5th May 1993 stating that the noble and learned Lord was currently considering the issues he had raised and hoped to reply shortly. In the event, no such reply was ever given.
Lastly, there is the issue of fairness to Sir John Wood himself. The noble and learned Lord said in the House on 21st March that he,
"understood Mr. Justice Wood's position to be that it was undesirable to apply the Rule 3 procedure fully"—[Official Report, 21/3/94; col. 498.]
that is, that he was not applying fully one of the statutory rules binding on the EAT, of which he was president, because he thought it undesirable to do so. I am bound to ask in what precise respects did the noble and learned Lord think that Sir John Wood was not applying Rule 3? If the noble and learned Lord was accepting, and accepts, the judicial practice of preliminary hearings in doubtful cases, how could he say that Rule 3 was not being fully applied by Sir John? Sir John had assured him in his letter of 5th March that where the grounds of appeal clearly do not give the EAT jurisdiction to entertain the appeal—that is to say non-doubtful or clear cases—Rule 3 was being applied in accordance with its terms; that is, they were being rejected under Rule 3 without any preliminary oral hearing.
This debate can give pleasure to no one, but it is critical that this issue be fully ventilated and, one hopes, laid to rest.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for having initiated this debate which, as he said, is not of narrow interest to lawyers and judges alone. The House will also be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having placed the relevant correspondence in the Library before this debate. The noble and learned Lord enjoys well-deserved popularity in all parts of the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has just said, this debate will give pleasure to no one. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, I believe that it is in the public interest for the issue to be fully ventilated and, one hopes, laid to rest.
I do not believe that the controversial "consider your position" key letter of 19th March 1993 would generally be understood as written by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as the most senior judge rather than as a member of the Executive. Nor, with great respect, do I believe that it would be

757
understood by most people, when read in context, merely as a request for Mr. Justice Wood to reconsider his interpretation and application of the relevant procedural rule. Speaking for myself, if I had received such a letter when I sat as a recorder I would have interpreted it as an official and formal invitation for me to consider whether I could properly continue in that office.
That is how, as Mr. Justice Wood explained in his reply of 23rd April 1993, he and senior judicial colleagues interpreted the letter. The letter of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was interpreted not as a threat of dismissal from office as a High Court judge, for that could only be done for gross misconduct or inability to perform, and only by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It was interpreted as the exerting of ministerial pressure upon him as a judge to change his mind or to cease to be President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, or else to resign. The fact that Sir John did not resign because of that pressure from the highest level is immaterial. It so happened that he was apparently already considering taking early retirement.
I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will feel able in his reply to this debate to acknowledge that, and to acknowledge that his choice of words was unfortunate. That would be positive and very helpful in clearing the air.
This affair must be as miserable to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his advisers as it must be to Sir John Wood and the judiciary. It painfully illustrates a problem which has recently become much worse. The basic problem was discussed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in a prophetic lecture given 17 years ago. It is the problem, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, of how to reconcile the divergent, and to some extent inconsistent, requirements of public accountability, judicial independence and efficiency in the administration of justice.
The office of Lord Chancellor carries with it a degree of respect, authority and distinction which transcends the personality of any individual, however distinguished, who may at any time hold it. It is also a constitutionally anomalous office. By uniting in one and the same individual judicial, administrative and legislative responsibility the Lord Chancellor is a standing violation of the pure constitutional doctrine of separation of public powers. The British constitution and the office can only survive in good health, and the system can only operate satisfactorily, if the Lord Chancellor commands the confidence of his judicial colleagues that he will protect the judges' independence from any improper interference, for in the exercise of the judicial function there is obviously no room for pressure by or fear of the Executive or Parliament or any outside body.
But the Lord Chancellor must also enjoy the confidence of his political colleagues that he will loyally give effect to the Government's political programme while remaining democratically responsible to Parliament, administratively as well as financially, for the proper functioning of the courts and the proper
758
performance by the judges of their duties. The demands of the office therefore are formidable because they involve reconciling what are inherently conflicting principles with the Lord Chancellor acting, in the phrase of Lord Birkenhead, both as the buffer and the link between the judiciary and the other two branches of government.
That role of acting as buffer and link could be performed relatively easily in the days when the judicial and legal role was predominant. But especially since the noble and learned Lord took office, it is the political and the administrative functions of the Lord Chancellor and his officials which have become dominant. In another powerful lecture on the independence of the judiciary, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said, some six years ago, that he had not heard of a judge who had come under pressure to decide a case in a particular way, but that there is a more insidious threat to the independence of the legal system as opposed to the independence of the judges who operate it. The threat arises by reason of the Executive's control of finance and administration. He drew attention to the very substantial shift in the control of the administration of the courts from judges to civil servants in the Lord Chancellor's Department and to the way in which that process has given rise to stresses between the judiciary and the administrators as to their different functions.
There are many who share the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and his view that justice is not capable of being measured out by an accountant's computer. Like him, we regret the fact that the Lord Chancellor's Department is required to formulate policy and to make determinations as to value for money according to financial yardsticks without for the most part even consulting the judges. The Lord Chancellor's Department is being encouraged by the Government's ever more centralising tendencies and it is being forced by the demands of financial economy to move more and more into areas which the judges have considered their exclusive concern. The Lord Chancellor is now a strongly political Minister. His executive responsibilities have come to dominate his office.
In seeking quite properly to reduce the wholly unacceptable delays in disposing of appeals in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but without being able or willing to appoint more judges or to introduce amending legislation, I fear that the Lord Chancellor and his department may have in this instance slipped into exerting direct pressure about the exercise of judicial powers by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
I recognise that the Lord Chancellor has a duty to ensure that the legal system is efficiently administered and that it is financially accountable. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, about that. Judicial independence does not mean that judges should be immune from being disciplined when they fail to perform their duties properly; or that the budget for the legal system is to be determined by the judges rather than by Parliament. But what it does mean, I suggest, is that the old system has become, in the office of Lord Chancellor, too institutionally schizophrenic to be able to reconcile the divergent, and to some extent

759
inconsistent, requirements of public accountability, judicial independence and efficiency in the administration of justice. We surely need some new institution, some kind of judicial and legal services commission to protect the independence of the judges and of the legal profession from the pressures which the Lord Chancellor, as a politically active and administratively vigorous Minister of Justice, and his officials are driven to exert.
I believe that there is a real need, for the sake of his great office and of the vital independence of the judiciary, to create a new bulwark between his department and the independence of the judges and legal profession. Whatever the machinery, there is a pressing need to secure confidence between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary. It cannot be done by the Lord Chancellor alone. If I may respectfully say so, it requires new thinking and greater sensitivity on the part of judges as well as the Lord Chancellor and his officials.
As regards the Wood affair itself, there are three basic questions which I suggest arise. First, why did the Lord Chancellor use the phrase "consider your position" in the context of the previous correspondence? Secondly, since he knew that Mr. Justice Wood interpreted that phrase as an attempt to interfere with his judicial function, contrary to his judicial oath, why did the noble and learned Lord not write to correct that interpretation, if he thought that it was a mistaken one? Thirdly, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accept that his choice of words was regrettable?
I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to resolve the great anxieties which the matter has raised.
9.31 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, as I see it, three separate issues emerge from the correspondence which has been placed in the Library. Together, they seem to have produced an explosive mixture.
The first issue concerns the contrast between the procedures of the Employment Appeal Tribunal sitting in England and its procedures when sitting in Scotland. The EAT, like its predecessor, the National Industrial Relations Court, is unique in being a British court, as contrasted with an English court or a Scottish court. In those circumstances, I find it astonishing that this divergence in procedures was allowed to emerge. I find it even more astonishing that Lord Mayfield, the Scottish judge, does not appear to have been invited to attend the court's annual general meeting in March 1992 or even to have been shown the agenda. He was, after all, as much a judge of the court as was Sir John Wood.
For Sir John to describe the English approach as being "fairer" was deeply offensive to any Scottish judge, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Furthermore, if the English procedure, the English application of Rule 3 was fairer—and I do not personally think it was—then it was surely Sir John Wood's duty as president to ensure that the English procedure was adopted throughout the court's jurisdiction.
760
The second issue concerns the tn.te nature of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Sir John Wood describes it in the correspondence as a "people's court" and clearly takes the view that, save in the clearest cases, disappointed litigants should be entitled to their "day in (that) court". That is why, as I understand it, Rule 3 was used very much more sparingly in England than it was in Scotland.
The alternative view is that the industrial tribunals were intended by Parliament to be the final arbiters in employment disputes and: other matters which are referred to them and that the role of the EAT was and is confined to deciding genuine, as contrasted with contrived, questions of law arising in the course of proceedings before the industrial tribunal.
Unlike Sir John, I believe that the latter is the correct view, and that the EAT is concerned with pure questions of law and should, on the whole, be restricted in its ingenuity in deciding questions of law. That difference of opinion is symptomatic of a difference in philosophy which extends throughout the English judiciary. Both groups are dedicated to achieving justice; but they differ on the price, in terms of delay, which can properly be paid in convincing litigants that they have in fact received justice. That difference of opinion—that difference of philosophy—is something that all heads of divisions simply have to learn to live with.
The third issue concerns the perception of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of his dual role as a judge and as a Minister. When in 1971 the NIRC was established, the noble Lord., Lord Carr of Hadley, was the Secretary of State for Employment. I well remember his asking me on a social occasion whether, as president, I was responsible to the Lord Chancellor or to the Lord Chief Justice. I replied that I was responsible to neither. I was responsible solely to the law and to my own conscience. I have no doubt that I was right. That is what the independence of the judiciary is all about. The judiciary as a whole is independent of the Executive. But it must never be forgotten that every judge is independent of every other judge.
The position was, in some ways to my regret, no different 11 years later when I was appointed Master of the Rolls. I could invite; I could advise; I could seek to persuade; I could, if you will, exercise leadership. But I could never require a Lord Justice to do or to refrain from doing anything, and I never sought to do so.
The Lord Chancellor in his capacity as head of the judiciary is in no different a position. He could and did seek to persuade Sir John Wood that Sir John was not making full and proper use of the Rule 3 procedure as required by the law. But if that failed—as it did—there was nothing further that he could do in his judicial capacity. No judge can ask another judge for an undertaking—still less an undertaking in writing which casts doubt upon the validity of an oral undertaking given by the judge—that he will act contrary to the law as that judge sees it. Still less can he be asked to "consider his position" if he refuses.
In his capacity as a Minister, the Lord Chancellor is responsible to Parliament for the administration of justice. That responsibility is not, however, unlimited. It extends only to the extent that Parliament has given him

761
authority to supply or withhold resources or to give directions. If Sir John Wood's view of the true scope of the Rule 3 procedure was unacceptable to the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as a Minister, his only remedy was to secure an amendment of Rule 3 putting his interpretation beyond doubt. Had he done so, I am absolutely certain that Sir John would have given effect to the rule as amended.
This apparent lack of accountability on the part of the judiciary may well seem an odd situation, particularly in this day and age when we hear so much about accountability. Our freedom under the law depends upon it, and I have to say that it has stood the test of time. That it can produce what has been described as constructive friction between the judiciary on the one hand and the Lord Chancellor and his department on the other is not open to doubt. However, given the necessary degree of sensitivity on both sides, the emphasis is usually upon the word "constructive" rather than upon the word "friction".
I for my part would much prefer that this issue had never been raised in a public forum. It is not only in this House that it has been raised. It has been raised outside this House. Therefore it has to be considered; and perhaps at this juncture it is better that it should be considered. In considering it and in conclusion, I have to say that I regard the terms of the letters of 5th February and 19th March 1993 of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, particularly the letter of 19th March 1993, as wholly inappropriate, whatever the provocation that he felt about the way in which the EAT was being run.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I conducted the first case before him in the NIRC and indeed the last case. Perhaps I may say with the greatest respect that his analysis of the three issues is totally sound. Where I disagree with the noble and learned Lord is in his interpretation of the request to Sir John Wood that he in fact consider his position.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, delivered a trite exposition of the position as regards judicial independence, with which we are all familiar, which we all respect and upon which there is common ground. He then referred to "murmurings" that the Lord Chancellor had put Sir John Wood under pressure—murmurings which were wholly misconceived. Then the noble Lord got on his high horse, so to speak. Like Don Quixote he started tilting at the windmills of those murmurings, none of which can be substantiated in this debate. The fact of the matter, which is simple to see and state on a fair appreciation of the correspondence, is that Sir John, who I may say at once not only was a colleague of mine but is a friend, insisted upon operating a regime which was contrary to the rules (Rule 3) as regards appellate procedure which were observed in Scotland—a departure on the part of Sir John Wood which was deeply resented by the Scottish judiciary.
With regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, I agree that the letter was read
762
entirely out of context and away from the circumstances, one of which being that it was known to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor at the time that the letter was written that Sir John intended to retire from the judiciary. It is also apparent in that correspondence that that retirement is acknowledged as having nothing to do with the disagreement that appears in the correspondence between Sir John Wood and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
It is said by the noble Lord that the Lord Chancellor was acting in an executive capacity (whatever that may be). But on analysis can we test it in one way? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice told us on the last occasion when this distressing matter was considered by your Lordships, that he read and approved the letter. Is the Lord Chancellor part of the Executive? Was he acting as part of the Executive? What does the noble Lord mean? The precise words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, if I remember correctly, were, "I was privy to it".
Like the noble Lord, I deeply regret and resent the activities of many government departments. But I cannot see how that resentment can serve justifiably as a springboard for setting up a Ministry of Justice, a commission for new thinking and so forth, to which the noble Lord referred.
There are few points I wish to make beyond the points I have sought to make in reply. But we must face the fact that this House is concerned with what amounts to a Motion of censure on the conduct of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in the discharge of his duties, wrapped up in the form of a Question from Her Majesty's Opposition to Her Majesty's Government. Even if there were cause for censure—I do not accept for one moment that there is when one reads "consider your position" in the context of the whole correspondence and the resignation position—and though the Question must be in order because it was accepted by the Table, is your Lordships' House a proper forum for the expression of such censure? It is contrary to the traditions of your Lordships' House to attribute any improper motive to any noble Lord, and assuredly I do not do so. But whatever the motive for tabling the Motion, in the light of this debate it will be assuredly established that the motive was not well conceived.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has now, so to speak, been put in the position of being forced into the dock to Answer, and so he shall. Although relations between my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary and the legal profession—of which I am still a somewhat active member—have been less than satisfactory (let us face it, that is the position) this situation is not novel. It arose before. I see that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is not in his place. I am sure that he would not object to my saying that it arose as recently as in his day and the relationship between himself and the profession had to be referred to the courts. So, my Lords, whatever the position may be, the one thing that may not be called in question is the integrity of my noble and learned

763
friend the Lord Chancellor; apart from the fact that the documents placed in the Library, read as a whole, speak for themselves.
In conclusion, my personal hope—I speak for myself as usual in this place; I speak for no one else ever—is that the indignity of this unfortunate occasion may not serve as any form of precedent. I have known for many years Sir John Wood, Sir Francis Purchas, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and all noble Lords who have spoken and are to speak in this debate. They are all men of the highest integrity. They are all honourable men, some are my personal friends. The same may be said of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I speak a little longer than I usually do in your Lordships' House I pray for your Lordships' forgiveness because the matter we are debating tonight is of a very serious nature. Perhaps I may at once be allowed to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I was going to thank, as I will do in a moment, my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg for doing something which I think is very necessary; namely, attempting to clear the air and to stop what I regard as the completely inaccurate statements and headlines that have appeared in the press. I am deeply grateful to my noble friend, who, certainly as I heard his speech, did not appear to me to be moving a vote of censure or indeed uttering words of censure. I understood him to make a moderate speech in which there were questions raised and not statements made.
Having said that, I know my noble friend will forgive me if I take a line quite different from his. It is because I have stood in your Lordships' House over the years demanding, if you like, from the Lord Chancellor more money for judges, more money for county courts where the staff appear to be underpaid in certain respects, and more money for legal aid, that I cannot be dishonest enough, having made those demands from these Benches, to then say, "But please, if you find that there is wastage; if you find that there are economies that ought to be made, Lord Chancellor, turn your eye away. Don't look, don't worry, it is not within your province to do it".
I am going to take your Lordships, who I know will be patient with me, through correspondence that has not been referred to at all in the debate so far. I start off by referring to the headlines that I mentioned at the outset. "Exclusive" from the Observer on 6th March:
"Judges outraged by Mackay".
From the Observer of 3rd April:
"Revealed—how Mackay misled Parliament".
There is at the very commencement of the documents placed before your Lordships and before the Members of another place a report that was given to Lord Justice Watkins, Deputy Chief Justice, by Sir John. The date of the document is 13th December 1991. The report was on the present problems of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Page 1 refers to the principles enunciated in the Citizen's Charter:
764
"The present delays would be a matter of the gravest concern at any time, but are quite unacceptable in the context of the Citizens' Charter initiative".
Page 3 states:
"Present position. On the 3Ist November"—
I did not know that there was a 31st November 1991, but according to Sir John there was—
"1991 (eight months into the present Financial Year) there [are] 685 outstanding appeals. This constitutes about two years' work. The projections to 31st March 1992 give a total annual registration of about 750 appeals and the backlog to stand at nearer 800".
I move on to Page 5. Not all of your Lordships may have these documents.
"In 1985 Preliminary Hearings were introduced. A Preliminary Hearing is one at which the Appellant appears ex parte before the full Court, which has before it a complete file of the relevant documents. We allow one hour".
That means that on the timetable one hour at least is allowed for a matter which may be completely and absolutely hopeless and where the court has no jurisdiction at all because it is a matter of law. One hour is allowed in the programme for a full court.
I continue:
"There are remarkably few cases which are clearly frivolous on the face of the documentation. This is really a case of 'de minimis'. In Scotland an HEO (unqualified) sends an appeal back to the appellant as disclosing no point of law if he so thinks. There is an appeal from him to the Judge".
At the moment I am going into the orders, why they were made and what they say, and with your Lordships having the patience to allow me to do so. The report continues:
"Having considered this rather different procedure I do not consider it desirable, here in England and Wales nor do I like it particularly".
I now turn to Page 7:
"In approximate terms some 30% of cases registered before Industrial Tribunals are in fact heard and of those heard approximately 6% become registered appeals".
Then,
"It will be seen from a perusal of the figures for preliminary hearings that a fairly regular proportion of one third are sent to a full hearing".
In other words, for a full court at least one hour is allowed for each case, however hopeless on the face of it that appeal may be. I shall go into that. Then we have the result of these preliminary hearings, where only about one-third go forward to a full appeal. I move on to Page 9.
"The EAT is a politically sensitive Court and the backlog has been unacceptable for a very substantial length of time".
There is a summary on page 13:
"The present backlog at the EAT is unacceptable by any standards and in the light of the Citizens' Charter is proving most embarrassing. The volume of work is certain to increase substantially in the very near future and to reach levels which have been unknown in the past".
He then goes on to say that three courts are available with the staff to administer them and that he would rather like an increase in the courts.
The conclusion is:
"Looked at only from along the 'judicial route' there is an immediate need for two more Courts. I would hope that with two more Courts we could within 2 years, diminish the backlog to a reasonable period of waiting time, which I would assess at six months. I would also hope that we would be able to cope with the anticipated influx".
I emphasise the last sentence:
"The latter I cannot possibly promise but without at least two further Courts calamity faces us".

765
I pause for a moment before continuing with the document to consider, in the light of the debate, what is the constitutional position of the Lord Chancellor. I shall quote the noble and learned Lord himself in a lecture that he gave to London University about three years ago. I do not intend to mention the circumstances except that I was there. The noble and learned Lord said:
"The Lord Chancellor is responsible to Parliament for the delivery of a fair effective and efficient overall system for the administration of justice within the constraints of the monies voted to him for these purposes by the House of Commons. I am not answerable for the determination by the Judges of individual cases within the system. This is the sole responsibility of the independent judiciary: no Judge can be directed to decide a case in a particular way. I have particular responsibilities in relation to the jurisdiction and procedure of the civil and higher criminal courts in England and Wales. When necessary it falls to me to promote legislation to make improvements in the constitution, jurisdiction, procedures and so on of those courts".
I do not think that anybody participating in this debate —nor, I believe, any judge outside your Lordships' House—would quarrel with one word of that definition of the Lord Chancellor's duties in regard to the administration of justice and of courts.
I turn now to what a Lord Chancellor has to look at by way of procedure—not by way of decision in a court and not by way of indicating to a judge how he should decide. I shall give your Lordships the history—very briefly, I promise —and the history starts off in 1976 in the terms of the rules of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The famous paragraph (3) occurs in that order. It is very clear. Parliament provided it and it is the duty, I submit, of judges to obey the orders of Parliament when the orders are in regard to the procedures which those judges ought to carry out in order that they can reach justice at the end of any particular case or hearing.
The following (in 1976) stated what the procedure was to be. A registrar would have a look at an appeal notice. He would make a decision and would have to give his reasons. There would be an opportunity for the appellant to put in another notice. But in 1980 your Lordships reconsidered the position and thought that that possibly was not good enough. So your Lordships allowed to be passed the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1980, which added something to Rule 3 under "Institution of appeal". What it says—this has not yet been quoted—is:
"Where an appellant expresses dissatisfaction in writing with the reasons given by the Registrar, under paragraph (2) of this rule, for his opinion that the grounds of appeal stated in a notice of appeal do not give the Appeal Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, the Registrar shall place the papers before the President or a judge for his direction as to whether any further action should be taken on the appeal".
Your Lordships may think that that is a good and just procedure. It is not just for the registrar to decide, but, if the appellant is dissatisfied, the matter has to go before the President or a judge to decide whether there is a point of law.
What did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor find? He does not need me to defend him, but I am trying to see what anyone trying to look at the matter would find. First, there is the question of the huge delays which had occurred—a terrible amount of delay. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord is asked for money all over the place by people like me and my
766
noble friends Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Williams, because we have so much at heart that which is needed in the judicial system, and for which every penny is needed. What would any one of your Lordships do but look at the backlog, look at the waste of money, and look to see whether there is a procedure which is not being carried out? Preliminary judicial hearings are taking place before a full court for an absolutely hopeless case, and one hour is allotted to find that out.
One thing has been said here—I have looked at the documents—which I must make clear. I have found nothing in the documents other than that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his department have said, "Where there is no merit shown in the application, then Rule 3 must apply, but if there is a good case, or a doubtful case, then by all means have your preliminary hearings". It is especially helpful if directions can be given at the preliminary hearings which allow the case to go through more speedily.
I could go on taking your Lordships through the correspondence. Will those of your Lordships who do not have the documents accept from me that letters are sent patiently to the learned judge? I pay tribute to his learning and to the years during which he sat on the Bench. But there are, and I say this frankly, delays in the correspondence. Weeks and weeks go by without a reply. And the whole time the arrears are building up. There is no straight answer to this: "There is something laid down by Parliament for the expeditious arrange-ment of your tribunal, please accept it". In the end there is no acceptance and a whole year goes by. I believe that the letter which has been read out had a couple of words in it to which reference has been made which are possibly capable of a different meaning. They are, "Consider your position". All I can say in answer to that is that the judge (the President of the tribunal) in answering that letter did not say, "Does this mean that you are asking for my resignation?" He does not take that attitude at all. He says—and I paraphrase—"I have considered my position and I still take the same view, that you put me in a very great difficulty constitutionally".
The difficulty was not justice in his tribunal. The difficulty was the accumulated delays and the accumulated expenditure, which, quite honestly, was not an economic use of money. I can only say that I wish that this debate had never taken place except, as I say, in order to stop newspapers from printing things which are not accurate about the noble and learned Lord's conduct and what happened.
I can only say in honesty that if I had been in that position—and I hope that your Lordships will not think this a pompous remark—save for an ambiguous phrase, I should have lost my temper by the end of last year, and I should certainly have hoped that somehow or other that backlog and wastage would cease.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, during the past three or four years, at the instance of the British Council or the Council of Europe, I have addressed judges in Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Moscow and Slovenia. On some of

767
those occasions I was among other senior judges from Western Europe who spoke, but on behalf of the United Kingdom I was always asked to speak on the subject of the independence of the judiciary. No doubt that was because it was thought that the common law system particularly protected that fundamental feature of justice.
The leitmotiv of my speeches was that a strong and independent judiciary is one of the central supports upon which our liberties are based and upon which the rule of law depends. That statement of that vital constitutional principle is not derived from my own words. Those words are to be found in the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper in 1989 on the work and organisation of the legal profession.
I find that it is deeply depressing that last month almost 100 of your Lordships sought unsuccessfully, losing by some 17 votes, radically to strengthen Clause 70 of the Police andMagistrates' Courts Bill in order to achieve the stated purpose of that clause; namely, to safeguard the independence of the legal advisers of the lay judges—the justices—something which the Government, in their wording, were so signally failing to do.
Here we are, a month later, debating at the instance of the Shadow Lord Chancellor the serious questions: first, whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor acted unconstitutionally by pressuring the president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, a High Court judge, to follow a legal course which the judge considered contrary to his judicial oath; and, secondly, whether the Lord Chancellor's defence to that accusation as provided by him to the House on 21st November was factually inaccurate.
Perhaps l may respectfully submit that we are not concerned with what was so much at the centre of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as to who was right—the Scots or the English—as regards the preliminary inquiry. What we know is that Mr. Justice Wood, in writing the detailed letter in March setting out his basis for following that procedure, did so after consulting his senior brethren and said in terms in that
letter:
"I am following a course which Mr. Justice Phillips"—
a greatly respected judge—
"commenced in I977'".
The usefulness of that procedure is attested by the fact that Gordon Slynn (now a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary), Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson (again, now a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary), Lord Justice Waite and Mr. Justice Oliver Popplewell also followed it.
Just to bring the matter up to date, I recently had the privilege of meeting Mr. Justice Mummery at a dinner in his Inn, a matter of some weeks ago. He is now the president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and following exactly the same procedure which was so critically mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He said in terms:
"I have not altered and do not intend to alter the present well-established procedure of preliminary hearings. They are a fair and reasonable way of sifting appeals and protecting respondents to hopeless appeals from having to attend a full hearing and incur irrecoverable costs. The present procedure for
768
establishing whether an appeal raises a point of law or not is legally sound and, I understand, good practice from the point of view of industrial relations".
He told me that the backlog is about as bad as it was in the time of Mr. Justice Wood; namely, a wait of two years. The reason for that is, essentially, a shortage of judge power. As a result of the judiciary being somewhat diluted on that score by the provision of circuit judges sitting as High Court Judges rather than High Court Judges doing so, he hopes to be provided with four tribunals. He says that, if he is, he hopes to be able to bring the two-year period down to one year by the end of the year.
I submit that all of that is a total irrelevance. What Mr. Justice Wood did was to set out in detail how he justified his position. He did so after taking further advice and quoted his predecessors, and have quoted his successors, as considering the system to be quite sound. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would have been at liberty to alter the rule if he was so minded by now, but it has remained unaltered.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, how does the noble and learned Lord think that it should be altered? Further, how does it alter the circumstances with which we are dealing?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am not suggesting for a moment that it should be altered. I am submitting, first, that it is not a matter that we need to go into. The strongest possible prima facie case was made out by Mr. Justice Wood that, in order to deal with ambiguous cases emanating from litigants in person, one should have a preliminary enquiry in order to discover whether or not there was a good point. Moreover, 30 per cent. of the cases which were ambiguous went forward to a hearing and Mr. Justice Mummery has confirmed that the same thing occurs at present and that it takes about half an hour for the tribunal, having read the papers, to deal with the appeal.
Up to a point, I have sympathy with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He is required to wear too many hats—the hat of a Member of the Cabinet, that of the Speaker of the House of Lords and that of the head of the judiciary. If one wears too many hats at once one runs the risk of at least one of them falling over one's eyes so that one is not able to see straight. With respect, I submit that that is what. happened in this case.
Secondly, the expeditious hearings required by the Government's Citizen's Charter could not be achieved without more judicial manpower. At that period—and, indeed, for some years previously—the Lord Chancellor. had been pressed by the former Lord Chief Justice, my noble and learned friend Lord Lane and by the current Lord Chief Justice, my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor, for more judges. The pressure had been such that the system had not operated so speeches were made at judges' banquets in the City saying that the situation had been reached where it was becoming, a national disgrace and justice was imperilled. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was sufficiently anxious about it that he may remember that in July 1992 he raised a Starred Question on that very subject, on which my noble and

769
learned friend Lord Oliver spoke and ventured to suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was abusing his powers under Section 9(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 by the overuse of deputies. It therefore was a question of manpower which was causing all this difficulty.
I do not spend any time on the letters but I do spend a little time on the explanation for the letters. We have learnt—those of us who have read it—from the lengthy article in the most recent publication of the New Law Journal that in January 1994 the home affairs correspondent, Mr. Rose, asked the Lord Chancellor's Department about the correspondence of which he had heard. He was told, according to the quotation in the article:
"There was no question of changing the rules or ending or limiting the ex parte hearings. They were merely discussing the existing rules. The Lord Chancellor was acting in his capacity as the most senior judge not as a member of the Executive".
The reference to his capacity as the most senior judge has no longer been persisted in, and rightly so, because as recently as 22nd February of this year, on the fourth day of the Committee stage of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, in dealing with the position of a chief justice, my noble and learned friend said,
"The fact that somebody is chief does not necessarily mean that that person has a right in all matters to overrule his brethren. I am sure that in the judicial field all understand well that the chief justice is not entitled to give directions in judicial matters to his brethren except in so far as he may from time to time sit in a court which is superior to them, and by virtue of whose decisions they may be bound".—[Official Report, 22/2/94; col. 574.]
It is difficult to know quite in what capacity my noble and learned friend required—demanded indeed—that Mr. Justice Wood should consider his position.
I come now to the Answer which my noble and learned friend gave to the House in answering the Starred Question on 21st March. In dealing with whether the Government were satisfied that he had acted constitutionally, he said,
"the short Answer is yes".—[Official Report, 21/3/94; col. 498.]
Then he read out a fairly detailed statement dealing with the matter. In the course of that he dealt with the words "consider your position". He also said:
"That meant that I wished to ascertain on what basis a procedure not applying that rule in full might properly rest".
That elicited the immediate reaction from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in these terms:
"Am I not right in saying that the letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was written only after he had received a full and carefully considered letter from Mr. Justice Wood, written after he had consulted senior legal colleagues, explaining why Mr. Justice Wood, and his predecessors, regarded the long-standing practice of the Employment Appeal Tribunal as expeditious, economical and conducive to the interests of justice, and why he could not see any alternative way of fairly resolving the problem in the manner demanded by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? Did not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his letter say in terms that he wished no further discussion of the rule, despite Mr. Justice Wood's full and reasoned earlier letter?"
To that there came an answer which contained at least one strange sentence. My noble and learned friend said:
"I was not disputing his interpretation of the rule; I was asking that the rule should be applied".—[Col. 498.]
He went on to say:
770
"If Mr. Justice Wood was not prepared to give that assurance I wished him to state the basis upon which a procedure, which was not fully applying the rule, could properly rest".—[Col. 499.]
That is the sequence, which is exactly the wrong way around.
The point was then taken up immediately by my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver, who asked this question:
"Is it the fact that an assurance was demanded of the judge that he exercise his judicial discretion by adopting a procedure that he had already indicated on carefully reasoned grounds he regarded as inappropriate and contrary to the established practice of the Employment Appeal Tribunal ?"—[Col. 499.]
That question was not answered at all.
Finally, on the question of the error, three days later, during the Third Reading of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill on 24th March, on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I addressed to the House observations about the failure in that Bill properly to protect the independence of the justices' clerks. I went on to make a passing reference, carefully saying that I was not dealing with the merits of the question, to the allegation that had been made in the Observer. I said:
"I have checked against a copy of the correspondence the validity of the correction which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lester, unsuccessfully invited the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to make to his detailed answer as to the sequence of events—which came first, the judge's detailed justification of the procedure he was adopting or the letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor telling the judge, as is accepted, 'to consider his position' ? Having made that check, it is quite clear that the sequence suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lester, was correct. Out of fairness to Sir John, I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will take the earliest opportunity to correct the error". —[Official Report, 24/3/94; Col. 805.]
I am sorry to say that that correction has still to be made.
The important point in all of this is that in answer to a Starred Question the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sought to give his justification of the use of the words "consider your position", and the only justification he gave—and therefore I assume that it is the only justification made—was that that was in a letter in which he was seeking to elicit from the learned judge the basis for his applying the rule in a different manner from that which he wished.
But the judge had given that reason fully in a two page letter. He had cited other judges who had followed the same procedure. There is no question of any lengthy delay of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. On page 2 of the letter he gave a very detailed reference to the sections, the powers of the tribunal and the extent to which he was perfectly entitled to apply that rule.
I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time. I respectfully submit that however unwitting the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may have been in the expression which he used, this clearly was, in the circumstances, an unconstitutional way of applying pressure to a judge. I hope that the sequence of events as indicated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, which redounds to the discredit of the learned judge who is not here to defend himself, will at least be corrected today.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, it might seem that the replies to the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, are to be found on the face of the correspondence deposited in the Library. Indeed, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should be thanked for having deposited those papers in the Library, making them available not only to those who are taking part in the debate today but to anyone who has had an interest in the matter.
As noble Lords heard, when the matter was first raised in this House on 21st March as a result of a Starred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the letter which then aroused criticism, and more specifically certain wording, had been seen by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice. I wish to quote this passage since the noble and learned Lord is not taking part in the debate. In the Official Report of 21st March, at col. 499, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, said:
''My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that I was privy to this matter at the time, that I did not consider there to be any question of suggesting to the judge that he ought to resign his judicial office and that if I had felt any anxiety about any encroachment on judicial independence I would have raised the matter with him?"
That is clearly put by the Lord Chief Justice.
Having regard to those two comments, in the circumstances one might have thought that the debate was misconceived. But, due to media interest—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I do not equate that with public interest—that does not allow the matter to remain without solution. Like the noble Lord Lord Mishcon, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for having raised the matter tonight. I hope, too, that the debate will clear the air, that it will terminate the question, and that there will be no further mention of this case. I do not think that the issue redounds to the credit either of this House or indeed of many of the personalities who have been involved in the publicity which has been given to this affair. Indeed, if I may say so as an outside observer, I should have thought that the judiciary could have handled its affairs rather better between its members than dragging all this into the open.
However, issues arise from this matter which can also be of general interest and concern and are in no way attached to the person of the Lord Chancellor, whose personal integrity is without doubt. There are bound to be increasing tensions between the Executive and the judiciary as indeed was evident in dealing with the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. That was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. If more tribunals—such as a tribunal dealing with immigrants—are established, there will be a further increase in tension as the Executive seeks to restrain open ended expense while ensuring at the same time fair, speedy and efficient service to the citizen. At the same time, understandably, in accordance with the traditions of this country, the members of the judiciary, be they High Court judges, magistrates, or at whatever level of the judicial system, will insist on their independence.
772
As has been mentioned by other noble Lords, the conflict becomes more acute under the. British constitution, where the Executive, legislature and head of the judiciary are encapsulated in the one person of the Lord Chancellor. As the growth of legislation increases and more and more people are involved in laws they cannot and certainly do not understand, it might be worth reconsidering the often mentioned proposal of establishing a Ministry of Justice. But, of course, as so often, the solution of one problem leads to more problems and all one would see would be a proliferation of civil servants. I believe that many of us would not wish to see that.
In studying the correspondence before the House, three overriding duties face the Lord Chancellor. I do not state them in order of priority. The first is to protect the taxpayer from excessive and unnecessary expenditure; the second is to ensure that the laws and rules adopted by Parliament or by statute are observed; and the third ensures that the rights of the citizen are protected by a fair, efficient and, in so far as is concomitant with that, speedy procedural system.
The issues are broadly two. First, there is the right of the president of the EAT to be free to interpret the Acts and rules and to continue the practice of allowing preliminary hearings for appellants even where there is no obvious question of law on the face of the appeal, which is not set out in the EAT rules of 1980. Understandably, the President's comment in his paper to the AGM of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in March last year, as stated in the letter to Sir John Wood from Lord Mayfield, was not conducive to good relations with other parts of the United Kingdom. In document 4, which has been referred to, Sir John Wood stated that the non-use of preliminary hearings in Scotland:
"means that the members of the public in England/Wales have what is seen to be a 'fairer system' under the same Act than their counterparts who … live in Scotland".
Surely that was an injudicious remark, to say the least. It was vigorously denied by Lord Mayfield in his letter of 6th March, document 5, in which he comments that he regards the English system "as wasteful of time". He does not recollect any criticism of the procedure followed in Scotland in relation to potential appeals.
Sir John Wood apologised to Lord Mayfielcl for his comment, but to the outside observer it must be regretted that, with a system that works well in Scotland under rules which were meant to apply to the whole of Great Britain, a more lengthy system introduced into England and Wales does not speed the course of justice.
Certainly, recent statistics show a great difference in the number of cases and a discrepancy in the backlog of cases building up. I received statistics this morning from the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon rightly referred to the correspondence and a report of Sir John Wood in which he referred to the possibility of a backlog of 800 cases projected for 1992. In the Employment Appeals Tribunal statistics for the year ending 1993, which include appeals set down and disposed of, just for England and Wales, outstanding at

773
the end of the year are 1,068 cases. That is well over 200 more than the figure which was quoted in the projected view.
In the Employment Appeal Tribunal statistics for the month ending March 1994, 74 cases were set down; 44 were disposed of. These are preliminary hearings and there are still 283 preliminary hearings outstanding for the month ending March 1994. So I find it difficult when certain noble and learned Lords say that the holding of preliminary hearings has no effect on the length and speed at which tribunals are working. It is quite clear that the preliminary hearings are one of the great drawbacks to getting on with such cases. In England and Wales, the backlog is increasing every year, as opposed to Scotland where there is always a minus figure. The waiting time now in England and Wales is anything between 18 and 24 months.
As an ordinary citizen, I believe that in view of the kind of cases involved—and it has been said that there are people who are not able to understand the law, who need assistance with their cases—it is surely intolerable and certainly not in the interests of citizens who, with appeals which may fall within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, have to wait because of what appears to be a cumbersome process. Nor does it help those who have no justification for carrying on with their appeal.
The rules were drawn up by the late Lord Elwyn Jones—a compassionate man, if ever there was one—and people were satisfied that the rules would operate in a fair as well as speedy manner. It is regrettable that they should have been questioned more recently. Not only is it necessary that justice should be seen to be done, but most importantly, one of the oldest principles in English law—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Can she tell me whether anyone has questioned the rules, or do people disagree about their interpretation?
Baroness Elks: My Lords, no one has questioned the rules, but what is questioned is whether a judge in the case has the right to introduce different procedures which are not within the rules. Rules 3(2) and Rule 3(5) are laid down and they deal with appeals which may be considered hopeless. A person can put in an appeal under Rule 3(2) and, if the applicant is not satisfied after a certain number of days, he can apply again under Rule 3(5).
What is not within the rules is the method of preliminary hearings, where, even in an appeal which is clearly on the face of it not raising a question of law, there is an hour which is given to an appellant in case a question of law might emanate from the preliminary hearing. There is no mention of a preliminary hearing in the rules of the EAT, nor is there in the employment protection consolidated measure from which the rules stem. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to give a fuller reply if I do not have my facts right, but I believe that I have. I think that that gives the answer to the noble Earl.
The oldest principle in English law, which I was just coming to, and which as a historian I know the noble
774
Earl will appreciate, is that "justice delayed is justice denied". That point has not been mentioned and must surely be taken into consideration in this particular situation. It is surely right to expect the judiciary to seek to observe such a first principle when so many people suffer as a result of its not being observed.
The second question which arose in relation to interpretation is the use by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his letter of 19th March 1993, of the words which were the subject of a Question in this House on 21st March—and many noble and learned Lords have referred to this
"I must ask you to consider your position".
The noble and learned Lord has already spoken on this matter; he spoke at the time and has given his answer. I have already quoted what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said in relation to that particular sentence. But those words could in no way have been construed as meaning a possible request for resignation.
In his letter of 23rd April Sir John Wood makes it quite clear that he regards the interpretation of those words—so far as I can see, correctly—as relating to his view of the exercise of his judicial function. He also makes it quite clear in his letter of 21st June 1993 that he had made known his desire to retire to heads of division, and in one case to a head of division, at the beginning of the year. So there is no question that he could have assumed that this was an implication by my noble and learned friend that he should consider his position in relation to resignation. In my view, that simply does not hold up. And indeed, in submitting his resignation to my noble and learned friend on the same date, 21st June, Sir John Wood in his letter very correctly says:
"as you will see, [this] is unconnected with our recent correspondence".
In conclusion, noble and learned Lords will analyse much more acutely than I can, the correspondence in relation to protection of the independence of the judiciary. As in law, different interpretations can be placed on its contents. But I maintain that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, in seeking to protect the rights of the citizens against a proceeding which results in long delays could, with respect, look for better co-operation among the judiciary with his role, which we on these Benches believe he fulfils with integrity and distinction.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, first, perhaps I may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, when he said that this was a debate which gave nobody any pleasure —I might add, because of the high regard and indeed affection that we all have for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Secondly, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, perhaps I may make is absolutely clear that this is not in any sense a Motion of censure. We disagree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about something that he has done. But we disagree with Ministers every day of the week without it being a Motion of censure.

775
I intervene briefly because I believe that legal matters, especially those that involve the rights of the citizen, ought not to be left entirely to lawyers. I believe that I am the first layman to speak in the debate. I speak as a layman, and not as a lawyer.
I believe, and many of us believe, that the core of the matter that is being debated is quite fundamental to individual liberty, which to a considerable extent depends upon a judiciary which is free to function without any interference from the Executive, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said.
My noble and learned friend Lord Irvine referred to the separation of powers. In this country we do not have a proper separation of powers in the rigid sense in which a country like America does. There are a number of deviations from a proper separation of powers. For example, we have three law officers who all sit in the legislature and all sit in the executive. But they also have functions within the legal system. The Lord Chancellor is a Conservative Minister, who speaks and votes for his party in this House in Parliament. I do not object to that. He is perfectly entitled to do so. But also, in the words of his own press office, he is "the most senior judge" in the judicial system.
That odd feature of our constitution—there are many odd features of our constitution—works reasonably well because law officers have always leaned over backwards to keep their two functions, the political and the legal functions, separate from each other and not let one interfere with the other.
But in the matter under discussion, as I see it the two side; of the office of Lord Chancellor have at any rate converged, if not coalesced, in this matter. The nub of that aspect of the matter is the letter, which has been quoted by many speakers, from the Lord Chancellor to Mr. Justice Wood dated 19th March last year. There was a statement from the Lord Chancellor's press office on 27th January this year which said that, in his correspondence with Mr Justice Wood, the Lord Chancellor was acting in his capacity as:
"the most senior judge and not as a member of the Cabinet".
I find that extremely difficult and indeed almost impossible to accept. I am unable to accept it for two reasons.
The first reason is the Lord Chancellor's frequent references to money. I do not object to them, but throughout the whole correspondence he refers to wasting money and saving money. Indeed, in the letter of 19th March he referred to:
"a cheap and expeditious procedure".
I have been a Minister and I fully understand the pressures to which Ministers are subjected by the Treasury. I can well imagine what those pressures are like at present with the over-ambitious Chief Secretary that we have at the moment. But when those pressures are transmitted by the Minister to a judge in the performance of his judicial functions, surely it is the Minister who transmits them and not the senior judge.
The second reason why I find those words difficult to accept is the refusal of the Lord Chancellor to set up more courts —even one additional judge in one
776
additional court. There is a considerable backlog. I checked it with a practitioner in the tribunals today. It is up to and sometimes over two years.
I believe that there are two causes of that backlog, rather than the cause given by the Lord Chancellor. The first cause is the Government's industrial policy of complete non-intervention when large scale industrial redundancies occur. Unemployment and unfair dismis-sal are the biggest source of cases to the tribunals. Secondly, there has been a great increase in the number of appellants who conduct their own cases. I believe —and it has been said by others—that that is because of the cut in legal aid. Unemployed men cannot afford to employ lawyers and are doing the job themselves. I believe that those are the two causes of the backlog. They both flow from government policy and not so much from Mr Justice Wood's insistence on giving a fair deal to appellants whose appeals may not be worded in a way which makes the ground of appeal as clear as it should be.
We should also bear in mind the sensitivity of the appeal tribunal, and indeed the whole system, in dealing as it does with such evocative subjects as employment, unemployment, racial discrimination, sexual discrimi-nation and so on. As Sir Francis Purchas said in the article in the New Law Journal, and indeed as the judge said, "It operates on the fringe of politics". Therefore, I would add, it should be handled with the utmost sensitivity.
The letter of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dated 19th March fills me with alarm. I read the noble and learned Lord's explanation of it in your Lordships' House on 21st March this year. Surely the important point is not so much the actual word; in the letter and not so much what the noble and learned Lord intended, but what meaning a reasonable reader—and that includes Mr. Justice Wood—would give to it? I, as a layman, would paraphrase its meaning quite simply, and say that it means, "Do exactly what], a Member of the Cabinet, want you to do in carrying out your judicial functions, or else". That is how I would paraphrase the letter. The "or else", of course, is contained in the words,
"If you do not feel you can give me that assurance, I must ask you to consider your position".
Perhaps I can mention something which nobody else has pointed out. Had that phrase meant, "Consider the position you have taken on the matter at issue between us", it would be more appropriate to say, "reconsider your position". Clearly Mr. Justice Wood had considered the matter meticulously for many months previously. Surely it would have said, "reconsider". It did not say that. It said he should "consider" his position —that is, consider something he had not considered before. I think any reasonable person, including Mr. Justice Wood, would assume that those words meant that he should consider his presidency of the EAT or, alternatively, consider voluntarily resigning from the High Court Bench.
It is a matter of some disappointment to me, indeed of some anxiety, that neither the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor nor the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice—I am sorry he is not in his place but

777
he did intervene in your Lordships' House on this matter —accepted that the words used in the letter are at least capable of that construction. But whatever the words mean or do not mean, it was overall a sharp letter. Indeed, it was a harsh letter, and it had an overtone of menace. It is a letter which I believe a political Minister ought not to have written to a High Court Judge about the way in which he was exercising his judicial function. It was therefore, in my view, wholly unconstitutional.
10.53 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, I confess to a very great dislike for dissension and confrontation. I speak tonight—I want to make it quite clear—not for the purpose of heaping further coals of fire upon the already overheated head of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but because, for good or ill, the Question raised in this debate involves an important point of principle in which it would be clearly embarrassing for any member of the serving judiciary to become involved.
The circumstances out of which the Question arises must be a matter of great regret to us all. They disclose a deep and fundamental difference of opinion between our respected and popular Lord Chancellor, on the one hand, and a popular, respected and experienced judge, on the other, as to the way in which that judge should perform his judicial duties.
Four questions come out of all this. First, what is all this about, because I think a layman looking at this correspondence would be bewildered? Secondly, what is the constitutional position? Thirdly, did what occurred here overstep the limits of permissible Executive action? Fourthly, since all this happened a fairly long time ago, does it really now matter? On one view, you might, reading through all this correspondence, come to the conclusion that this was a storm in a not very significant teacup. Indeed, I think the position is probably a good deal simpler than might appear when one sweeps aside all the obfuscation that has taken place by contentions raised here and there.
With very great respect to him, I do not find the position nearly so clear as does the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Paragraph 16 of Schedule 11 to the Act requires an appeal to be heard by a tribunal. That is a tribunal consisting of a judge and two members. Rule 3, about which we have heard so much, is expressed in somewhat Delphic terms. It provides in effect that if a notice of appeal appears to be defective, then ultimately, and after going through various hoops, the registrar may place the matter before the judge for his directions whether any further action shall be taken in the appeal. What it does not do in terms is to empower the judge to hear and dismiss an appeal on paper—I refer back to paragraph 16 of Schedule 11—but what Mr. Justice Wood and the registrar had done was to devise and have up and running a perfectly sensible procedure for dealing with the obvious and frivolous and hopeless case. That simply involved giving the appellant a limited time either to get his notice in order or to ask for the matter to be referred to the judge under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3. If he did not do that, the appeal was deemed
778
to have been withdrawn. So one had got out of the difficulty of having to put the matter before a tribunal to have it dismissed.
What that did not do, of course, was to deal with the case, for instance, of the monoglot Welshman who would not know the difference between a point of law and a mountain goat but had served an ambiguous notice of appeal indicating, for instance, that he considered the industrial tribunal's verdict to be perverse, which might on investigation be a real point of law or it might mean simply that the industrial tribunal had not believed his evidence.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would allow me to intervene. Does he realise that he is in danger of coming before this tribunal for a remark of grave racial discrimination against the Welsh?
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that intervention.
So what the EAT had evolved over the years was a system of preliminary hearings for ambiguous notices to determine at the outset whether or not the appellant had a justiciable point. If he did not, the appeal could be dismissed out of hand because it was before the tribunal. If he did, it could be set down and come on for hearing in the ordinary way.
But it then seems to have occurred to someone in the Lord Chancellor's Department what a lot of tribunal man-time could be saved if one did not give the litigant the chance to explain himself. If he has not the wit, the education or the good luck to show clearly and on the face of his notice that he has an arguable point of law, let the notice be referred to the judge under Rule 3 and let the judge dismiss it under his power under Rule 3(5), presuming he has that power, to direct what further action shall be taken on the appeal. That way, the argument runs, and it may well be right, you can stifle a number of pending appeals in limine without troubling the tribunal, however briefly, and thus reduce the backlog.
That is where the battle lines were drawn. The learned judge thought that what he was being urged to do was not only less than fair to litigants but was not open to him on the terms of the statute; and, as the correspondence shows, he urged that there be proposed a small amendment to the Employment Bill then before Parliament to confer upon him the power to dismiss appeals on his own. But for some reason or another that was not done.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took a different view and was insistent that his view must prevail. The pity of it all, it seems to me, is that if the affair ever has to be looked at in statistical terms, it will be found that there was not, and is not, anything like as much involved in all this as those in the noble and learned Lord's department may have supposed and that there really was not any need for this storm in the proverbial teacup to blow up into a tempest. But there it is.
This is not the occasion on which it would be appropriate to debate whose view was right in law and whose view was wrong, although I point out in passing

779
that the learned judge's view had the support of his predecessors in office with practical experience of the EAT over a number of years and also the support of senior members of the judiciary.
The important point is the constitutional one of whether it was proper that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whether in his capacity as a senior judge or as an Executive officer, or in any other capacity, should seek to compel the judge to exercise his judicial function in a manner which, on reasoned grounds, he conscientiously thought to be wrong and contrary to the interests of justice —if, that is, the correspondence which we have seen amounts to such an attempt.
So it is to that constitutional question that I now turn. We have no written constitution, but the concept of judicial independence, which goes back to the Act of Settlement, is one with which we have all grown up. It is a concept of no very certain content and there is concern both in the judiciary and in the legal profession now that in recent years, under pressure from government, from civil servants and particularly from the Treasury, it is being more and more narrowly construed with an eye more to what is boasted to be "value for money" than to fairness and impartiality in our system of justice.
In his presidential address to the Holdsworth Club in 1950, Lord Justice Denning, as he then was, said this:
"No member of the Government, no Member of Parliament and no official of any government department has any right whatever to direct or influence or to interfere with the decisions of any of the judges. It is the sure knowledge of this that gives the people their confidence in judges … The critical test which they must pass if they are to receive the confidence of the people is that they must be independent of the executive".
I draw attention to the words,
"direct or influence or to interfere".
I would have hoped that what my noble and learned friend Lord Denning said was so well entrenched in our constitution that it could not be challenged. Recent pronouncements in this House have seemed to indicate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his department interpret the principle of judicial independence in a very much more restricted sense and as meaning simply this: that judicial independence is infringed only if an attempt is made to dictate or influence the decision in a particular individual case. I hope very much that I am wrong about that because one has only to think about it to see where the logical train then. leads. On that analysis, a direction in the 1930s by the German Ministry of Justice that judges were not to decide disputes in favour of members of the Jewish faith or against party members would have been no infringement of their judicial independence - and that, of course, is palpably absurd.
I turn to my third question. Was the constitutional principle of judicial independence infringed by what occurred in this case? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not, I feel quite sure, have any intention whatever to overstep the bounds of his constitutional authority, but I am bound to say that it seems to me that on any analysis at all the pressure which was applied in this case, for whatever reason, constituted an attempt by the Executive - no doubt in the
780
praiseworthy interests of economy and expedition - to overbear the conscience of a judge in the way in which he was to exercise his judicial duty and his judicial discretion - not, it is true, in an individual case but in the case generally of those individuals who are not sufficiently articulate to make it clear beyond any doubt that they are within the jurisdiction which they seek to invoke. And in the case of a court many of whose clientele are without legal aid, without legal assistance, some of them ill-educated perhaps and some perhaps belonging to ethnic minorities without a full command of the English language, that is a matter of very grave public concern.
I recognise that there are a lot of people - I dare say that there are perhaps some noble Lords among them who regard Her Majesty's judges as unduly sensitive about their independence from Executive interference, equiperating that with a claim to be immune from control and from any criticism. I do not, for my part. think that that is true or fair - but then I would say that, wouldn't I? But we are not talking about criticism. We are talking about interference with the judicial function —about dictation. I would remind the House that whatever failings there may be perceived to be in the judiciary, it is the judge and the judge alone who stands between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual under the law.
I also recognise - indeed, we must all recognise - the very real difficulties which confront the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in fulfilling his responsibilities for overseeing the administration of justice and in steering a course dictated by the multiplicity of hats which his office compels him to wear. Judges are, after all, human beings and they are susceptible to ordinary human frailty. If the noble and learned Lord forms the opinion that a judge is not doing his job properly - if, for instance, he spends more time on the golf course than in court, or if he does The Times crossword on the Bench, or brings discredit on his office by his private life - then it is, of course, his duty to take him to task, even, if necessary, to the extent of urging him to resign his office.
So we must all recognise the noble and learned Lord's difficulties and accept that he is right to be concerned with the proper deployment of judicial resources. It is he who has to answer for the perceived shortcomings in the administration of the courts and it is his right and his duty to counsel, to persuade and, if necessary, to criticise. But the question, as always, is: Where do you draw the line ?
Advice, counsel, persuasion, criticism and, if need be, yes, protest fall on one side of the line. But Parliament has established an appellate hierarchy to correct judicial errors of law; and direct Executive interference or attempted interference in the way in which a judge conscientiously seeks to comply with his judicial oath is a different matter altogether. I have to say—and I say it with regret and with the utmost deference to the noble and learned Lord—that it is, I think, very difficult for anyone who has read this correspondence to accept that it did not fall on the wrong side of the line. It cannot be construed otherwise —and I know that the learned judge did so construe it

781
—than as an attempt to coerce a judge to carry out his judicial function and exercise his judicial discretion in a manner contrary to the reasoned dictates of his own conscience.
The peremptory rejection of further discussion, the demand for an "immediate assurance", hardly leave any room for doubt. The significance of the expression,
"I must ask you to consider your position",
has a well-known conventional meaning, and I cannot believe that it has any different meaning north of the Tweed. What it emphatically cannot mean is, "Please let me have your reasons". It means, "Do as I demand, or else".
I have to say that my first reaction when I saw the letter —and I believe that it was a reaction that I shared with a number of others—was to say, "My goodness, we haven't seen anything like this since the reign of King James I". If there were any doubt about that, what further confirmation can be needed beyond the judge's agonised response in which he spoke of the constitutional issue being raised in such a stark form —which remained unanswered and uncontested—and the fact that his final, reasoned letter of protest remained inexplicably unanswered apart from a bare secretarial acknowledgement.
If the learned judge's construction of the letter of 19th March as a threat was wrong, the least that one would have expected was a reply saying, in effect, "What constitutional issue? What on earth are you talking about?" But the matter was simply left. The judge retired, and I would be the first to confirm from my personal knowledge—I have known the judge for many years—that that was a decision that he had made before any of this blew up—and exactly the same procedure for preliminary hearings in doubtful cases still continues, I am told, to this day under his successor in office, and is, I understand, regarded by that successor as essential to the proper working of the tribunal.
Well, now, that all occurred over a year ago and on one view of the matter might be thought to be something of a stale bun. Does it really matter now? It may be said that no great harm has been done. After all, the judge resisted the pressure under which he was put, and the preliminary hearings are continuing just as they were before. But I am bound to say that I believe that harm was done, and in three respects.
In the first place, Executive interference of that sort necessarily saps public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our judicial system. The litigant expects, and is entitled to expect, that his rights will be decided by a properly constituted court, not by the diktat of some civil servant in the department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or any other department.
Secondly, and particularly in the context of a court which is designed to be, to used the judge's phrase, a "people's court", it leads to a public perception that the interests of the citizen—the little man, if you like—are being overborne in the endless quest for what is called "value for money".
Thirdly—and I believe that this is most important —one of the many measures introduced—and I am sure rightly introduced—by the noble and learned Lord the
782
Lord Chancellor for refashioning the administration of justice is the appointment of younger, and, by definition, less experienced judges who may not all have the same fortitude as Sir John Wood. The correspondence which we have seen must necessarily sap their confidence that they will not be subjected to similar departmental pressure in other directions.
For my part, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for having brought this matter to the House for debate. Judicial independence is one of the essential pillars of the rule of law. I hope very much that if this debate has done nothing else, it will have made it clear that that must be preserved for, if we once allow it to be lost or eroded, we lose also with it the freedom of us all under the law.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, in their introductory remarks, my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned that there was a wider interest in this matter. I must confess that that wider interest had eluded me when I first saw this item on the Order Paper last week. But thanks to our campaigning press, I was alerted on Sunday, 24th April, when I read the Observer, and I saw an article headed:
"Parliament to grill Lord Chancellor over law cutbacks".
I then realised that that was something which was of some interest to me. Indeed, the article in the New Law Journal, which I must confess to your Lordships is not my normal reading, mentions Sir Francis Purchas saying that this
"demonstrated all the attributes of a Treasury-driven policy to achieve savings at any cost".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned the need for economy. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, raised the question of resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, mentioned the question of expenses. And, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, who has just spoken, also mentioned financial aspects. My noble friend Lord Mishcon was extremely frank with the House in detailing the various occasions on which he had been among those pressing for more money for various legal purposes.
A number of your Lordships who are legally qualified have appreciated that problem of resources, but I have yet to hear anybody say that one of the cardinal reasons why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is under such great financial pressure is the fault of the legal profession itself.
Because of the lateness of the hour, I shall confine my examples to those drawn from the proceedings of an Appeal Committee in your Lordships' House on Wednesday, 1st September, 1993 before the noble and learned Lords, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Templeman. That concerned two cases where counsel were appealing and both the appeals were rejected.
In one case, Regina v. Reid, the fees claimed by counsel and a junior were £107,355 for four days in court on appeal in the House of Lords. That was reduced by the Lords' taxing officer to £32,400 for the four days' work. That was the subject of the appeal.

783
In the course of the proceedings the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, said:
"The amount of fees you and your leader were claiming for a four day case would have hired three very competent headmasters for a year".
He goes on to mention the question of public interest and says further:
"These fees would have been unheard of even three or four years ago. The whole thing has come across from America and it has just gone up and up and up. On an annual basis this must run into millions".
I am prepared to give way to anyone who can tell me that those two counsel in the case of Regina v. Reid were quite exceptional; but, failing that, I must assume that that sort of thing is now not uncommon in the proceedings of the law in this country.
When consideration of what could actually be done about such inflated fees became a matter of discussion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, (at page 18 of the proceedings) said:
"This is a matter for the Bar Council at the end of the day, whether they are going to let the profession get out of hand like this or whether there will be some guidance on proportionality".
One would like to think that, here, the Bar Council would be a bastion of the public interest, trying to maintain a balance between a fair reward for work carried out and the need for the public interest and that of the taxpayer to be protected. How, in fact, do we find that the Bar Council has shaped up? One of the other appellants in the other case was asked (at page 34 of the proceedings) whether he felt that he had a grievance. The answer was yes. His claim had actually been for £25,000 and that had finally been settled by the taxing officer at £9,000, so a certain amount of pruning was involved. He went on to say:
"We did consult with the Bar Council, the appropriate committees and the chairman and deputy chairman of the appropriate committee on the Bar Council, giving them the details, and received their opinions that we should go forward".
I hope that the Bar Council will take a little notice of such matters and that it will try to get itself into some sort of shape. It should realise that a balance must be stnick between the legitimate earnings of lawyers and the needs of the general public and the taxpayer. As a very quick aside, I thought that one of the choicest parts of the proceedings occurred at the end of the hearing when one of the appellants said:
"My Lords, I have been asked by those instructing me … that if it is appropriate … for us to have our costs for today, whether we win or lose, then I would ask for them".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, asked, "Against whom?" to which the reply was:
'Well, my Lord, they must come out of the Legal Aid Fund".
It really is pretty choice—is it not?—that even such an appeal has to be funded by the taxpayer. It is time that the legal profession put its own house in order. It is not easy for people who are laymen in such matters to follow the arguments, although I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, that I have read the correspondence which has been placed in the Library. Difficult though I found it, I do not quite see the indictment which other speakers have seen.
However, there is a serious point here. Lay people must have some sort of protection from the growing greed of the legal profession. As I said, it must put its house in order. I fear that my experience in another place led me to observe from time to time that, when
784
legally qualified people were sat on the opposite sides of the House, especially in Committee, their mutual interest in the law very often seemed to override their party political differences. That was not to the general advantage of either the House or the public outside. I hope that what, I suppose, has been called the strongest closed shop left in the country will think very seriously about the matter. It is no good pasting the Lord Chancellor time after time because he has a limited budget and the taxpayer, as well as the legal profession, has rights. Something should be done to put the whole thing in order.
11.23 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken and with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Both of them said that tonight's discussion covers wider interests than simply those concerned with the law. I am yet another layman joining in the debate; but I have a point to make. I believe it to be a valid point and it has not been made yet. I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships that it will not take me very long to make it.
This discussion tonight is ostensibly a Question—in fact that is how it appears on the Order Paper—although I think it is a slightly odd Question, if I may say so, when there are no fewer than two speakers from the Opposition Front Bench, but let us leave that aside. In reality, however one dresses it up, it is an attack upon my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and it has been here and in other places for some weeks now, That is perfectly reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said, quite rightly, that Ministers are. attacked regularly. Yes they are; but this is not an attack on government policy. That is something that Oppositions do all the time, and quite rightly. I did it myself when I sat on the Opposition Benches in another place. That is wholly understandable and it is, in my view, entirely proper, indeed it is necessary for the proper conduct of democracy in this country.
But this is of a totally different order. This is a personal attack upon an individual Minister. It is not suggested that he is incompetent, or lazy or that what he is doing seems to the attacker to be against the public interest. But, it is suggested, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said, that he is doing something; that is wholly unconstitutional; namely, seeking to undermine the independence of a High Court judge by a thinly veiled threat to remove him from the office which he holds. Let us leave aside for a moment the question of whether any Minister has a power to remove any judge from any office without consulting Parliament, and concentrate, if we may, for a moment upon the likelihood that this Lord Chancellor of all people should seek to do something that he knows he cannot do, and that by dubious means.
Members of another place are called honourable Members. Some (of whom I was privileged and fortunate enough to be one) are called right honourable Members, and that prefix of course can attain to every Member of your Lordships' House. The fact that I believe we have to take into account, when considering

785
the validity of the allegations made against my noble and learned friend is simply this—can anyone here tonight think of anyone less likely to do anything dubious or underhand or in excess of his powers than my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor? Many of your Lordships, I am sure, know him better than I do; and certainly many know far more than I about the details of, for example, Rule 3, of which I freely confess I had never heard until a few days ago. But I must tell your Lordships that I for one have yet to meet anyone more honourable, more upright, more scrupulous and more meticulous in the performance of his duties according to law than my noble and learned friend.
786
I know, of course, that some of the things that my noble and learned friend has done in pursuance of government policy have not been wholly acceptable to the legal profession; but I am a layman wholly outside what I must call the closed circle of the legal profession and I think that many of those things have been to the benefit of ordinary people. Furthermore, to me the idea that he of all people could seek improperly to interfere with the course of justice and undermine the independence of the judiciary is quite ludicrous and should not be entertained for a single moment.
11.29 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I also am a layman and rise with a good deal of diffidence following so many extremely distinguished lawyers. I should like to say, however, to the layman who has just spoken before me that I think it is a very great pity to personalise this debate which, although it is about a particular incident and a particular event, also raises issues of much wider importance. That has been brought out repeatedly during the debate.
Although the debate was launched by a Front Bench Labour spokesman, surely it has been obvious that this has not been in any sense a party debate. Nor have any partisan issues been raised. That is something of which we must all be extremely glad. Most of us would wish that this debate had not happened. But, given the circumstances, it is inevitable that it has arisen. It will be useful that it has been conducted this evening in the manner in which it has.
If the 20th century has taught us anything surely it is that the independence of the judiciary is the absolute foundation of individual freedom and that if that is undermined in any way then we are indeed on a slippery slope. For my part., if my party in a moment of madness —which I am quite certain will never arise, at least on this subject—were to abandon the principle of the independent judiciary, I would promptly abandon my party. It is of fundamental importance and has to be protected at all times. That is, primarily, what this debate is about and why the issue has arisen.
It must surely be obvious to a layman, as it is to me, that the unfortunate sentence in the letter calling upon Mr. Justice Wood to consider his position has only one meaning. In common parlance it is used to mean "You had better get out". I find it very difficult to understand how that phrase could have been written and that letter signed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor without seeing that implication. I accept, as has been pointed out, that Mr. Justice Wood had made up his mind that he was going to leave in any case, but surely there were so many other ways in which the point could have been made: "Would Mr. Justice Wood not reconsider the way in which he was interpreting Rule 3 ?" or "Would he not consider his attitude?" rather than his position. It is the phrase "consider his position" that surely means only one thing to the ordinary member of the public. It is that which has drawn so much attention to this unfortunate incident.
f was most impressed by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, in which he pointed out that the pressure to conduct his affairs in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a rather different way from the way in which Mr. Justice Wood wished to conduct them was also a form of pressure.
That said, and that is undoubtedly the most unsatisfactory aspect of the case, the whole issue raises other points that require consideration. Of course it is right that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should have been concerned and should continue to be concerned by the backlog of cases in the EAT. A delay of two years is totally unacceptable, and it is right that the Lord Chancellor should be deeply
788
concerned. The people who go to an employment appeal tribunal are largely involved in cases of unfair dismissal or redundancy. A two-year delay is intolerable. It is right that that should be changed.
However, listening to this evening's debate, it is clear that the accusation against the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is that he is influenced by the Treasury, and we all know that the Treasury is "enemy number one" of all of us. But earlier this week we were talking about spending £30 million to lock up youngsters between the age of 12 and 16. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that £30 million would be very useful indeed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal to obtain those extra judges and courts, which could then take the cases which need to be taken and deal with this backlog. We cannot accept that that backlog should continue and the Lord Chancellor was obviously right to be deeply concerned that the delay was so long and damaging.
The second point of public interest goes even wider. It is true that there is a conflict of interest built into the very nature of the Lord Chancellor's job. We do not have a written constitution in this country. We pay lip service to the idea of the separation of the powers. But the position of the Lord Chancellor, imposed on him not of his choosing, is a denial of the separation of the powers, as other speakers have said. He is a political Member of the Cabinet, he has administrative and executive duties in the running of the judicial system, and he is head of the judicial system.
Those duties can conflict and have conflicted. My noble friend Lord Lester is right to say that we have to look at some way of altering the situation. Whatever may have been right in the past, it is no longer satisfactory that one person should carry those conflicting responsibilities. It may be—my party has put this forward, although I do not wish to put party points forward this evening—that a Ministry of Justice is what is required. But if not, some other body is needed which can deal with the administrative duties that are involved and which can reduce the conflict that inevitably arises from the position of the Lord Chancellor as it is defined today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said that there might be something to be said for a Ministry of Justice but that. it would mean too many more civil servants. I am no great enthusiast for an increase in the number of civil servants. However, I would regard even that as a rather small price to pay if we could get rid of the inconsistency and the conflict which are, inevitably built into the present position of the Lord Chancellor. The situation may have been all right in the past; it is no longer all right today. If serious consideration of how we deal with that issue comes out of today's debate, as I hope it will, along with a more serious attack on the delay in the Employment Appeal Tribunal., then this in many ways unhappy debate will nonetheless have been worthwhile.
11.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mosityn: My Lords, this is a gloomy day and I take no pleasure in it. If I had not read the correspondence placed n the Library, in particular

789
the letter of 19th March stating "consider your position", I would not have been prepared to believe that it had been written. This is not a Motion of censure on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dressed up as a Question, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, rightly observed.
Mr. David Rose of the Observer has done a notable public service, even if it is an unpopular one. He has brought out into the open what is very widely believed to have been illegitimate pressure on a serving High Court judge. The tone of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, was gentle as always. But the phrase that he used was that there had been an attempt to overbear the conscience of a judge. If the circumstances in which our discussion proceeds are as serious as that, it would have been derelict for my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, as Shadow Chancellor, not to have raised this Question in this form and so promptly, in particular bearing in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, had, rightly in my view, quite recently raised the issue as a Question, upon which there was limited opportunity for discussion, as a matter of relative urgency.
Perhaps I may put what I want to say in context. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows that he and I had close dealings in 1992 when I was Chairman of the Bar. To me and to others, he was always the soul of courtesy and consideration. We disagreed quite often, sometimes quite fundamentally, but he knows, I believe, that on every public occasion when we disagreed, I stressed my personal regard for him and his qualities. So it is tonight.
Sometimes criticism on these occasions comes from spite or spleen or a desire to settle old scores. That is not my case. What drives me tonight is, I am sorry to say, a sense of disappointment and a sense of having been let down. May I say why just for a moment? I have lived my entire adult life as a Member of the Bar of England and Wales. I was taught when I started to revere judicial standards and judicial independence and I believe I learnt and remembered that lesson. Tonight and in particular on reading the correspondence, I regret to say that my feeling was of trust misplaced.
If one simply looks and listens to the speeches of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Donaldson, Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver—a rollcall of honour in judicial service, if I may say so—one realises the deep concern which has nothing to do with selfish partisan advantage. None of them has a selfish interest in these matters. I do not know whether those three noble and learned Lords share any views in common with me. I rather doubt it, apart from one. That one is the one that matters to us all. It is the fierce certainty that will never go away that the independent judge is central to our nation and the quality of its life. If that stands, there is hope for us; if it withers, we are done for. That is the importance of this occasion, which no one on our side will demean.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is not speaking this evening, but I shall quote his well-known words:
790
"I always regarded my prime duty as Lord Chancellor [as being] to safeguard and maintain the independence of the Judiciary".
On a fair review of this correspondence and the lack of it, has that been done in this case? I regret to say that it has not. What those words mean, I believe, as a matter of fundamental importance, is that we can never tolerate any interference with judicial discretion, judicial view or judicial conclusion except by judicial means which have been referred to particularly in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. Nor should there be any appearance of an attempt to interfere with judicial independence.
I shall not deal with a particular speech which, although of interest, I dare say, was not of relevance, about whether lawyers charge too much. What Mr. Justice Wood was doing here was not attending to those who had expensive or even moderately priced lawyers. He was attending to those who had no lawyers at all.
So, if for a moment I may concentrate on what is relevant, Mr. Justice Wood may have been right in his interpretation, or he may have been wrong. That is not the point. What he was right about—and this is the point that will inure—was his refusal to succumb. Those letters of 19th March 1993, 7th April 1993, and the last paragraph (document 18 for the reference, should anyone want it) of the letter of 23rd April 1993 will deserve and receive rather more than a footnote's attention in the history of the judiciary in this country in the late 20th century.
I shall pause for a moment, if I may, as I am not sure that the full citation has been given, on the response of Mr. Justice Wood to the Lord Chancellor, in a fully considered letter:
"You have demanded that I exercise my judicial function in a way which you regard as best suited to your Executive purposes, but I have to say that in all the circumstances that present themselves to me and in the light of the existing law, I cannot regard compliance with your demand as conducive to justice".
I never thought to hear those words,
"You have demanded that I exercise my judicial function in a way which you regard as best suited to your Executive purpose",
from a serving judge in this country. I have heard them in totalitarian regimes elsewhere, some of which were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Perhaps I may cite again the last paragraph of that letter, because it rounds off the correspondence rather surprisingly:
"You express disappointment. I express profound regret that it has ever been the uncomfortable duty of a judge in this country, in compliance with his Judicial Oath, to write to a Lord Chancellor refusing a demand such as the one you have made of me".
No reply came, or ever saw the light of day. There was a civil servant's acknowledgment of 5th May:
"The Lord Chancellor is … considering the issues you raise and hopes to reply shortly".
There never was such a reply. The next letter in sequence (document 20) is a letter from a civil servant, saying to Mr. Justice Wood that he (the civil servant) understood that Mr. Justice Wood was intending to retire.
I repeat that this is not a question of personal attack. It is not a question of partisan recrimination. It is bigger, greater and wider than all of us. I would suggest, if I may, as earnestly and solemnly as I can, that the Lord

791
Chancellor should reflect; that he should conclude and acknowledge that the language of that letter of 19th March, with hindsight, was mischosen and mistaken, and that it will never again recur; that even at this late stage a graceful word of apology and regret would be appropriate. For our part, that would end the matter and redeem what we all recognise has been a very gloomy occasion for us all.
11.47 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Ciashfern): My Lords, I begin by registering my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for initiating this debate in the form of the Question which he set down, and also for giving me the opportunity of placing the whole of the correspondence in this matter in the Library, with the approval of Mr. Justice Wood. I have said before that it would be quite wrong of me normally to place correspondence with the judiciary in the public domain, and I have not done so on any previous occasion except with the consent of the particular person with whom I was corresponding. I believe that it is vitally important that members of the judiciary should be able to correspond with the Lord Chancellor in full confidence that the confidentiality of their correspondence will be respected.
I personally believe very strongly and fundamentally in the independence of the judiciary. I also believe that it is vitally important for the Lord Chancellor to do all that he can to preserve the independence of the judiciary.
Judicial independence does not mean that judges are above the law. The rule of law applies to them and to their work. When Parliament in a statute provides rules to which a tribunal is subject, the judges who are members of that tribunal are, in my view, bound to apply those rules. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, in a letter to The Times of 8th May, put that in a way which I should like to refer to. It was in connection with a sentence that had been before the court. The letter is dated 8th May 1993. The Lord Chief Justice is the writer.
"Sir, You print today an account of a case in the Court of Appeal yesterday in which the Attorney General's application to have an unduly lenient sentence reviewed was granted and the sentence was increased. The headline read, 'LORD TAYLOR ignores act to increase jail sentence'. The report went on to say:
'The Lord Chief Justice over-ruled the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice Act yesterday when he increased a jail term on a motor cyclist …' Those assertions were wholly wrong. The judgment of the court, as anyone who listened to it would readily have realised, explained how and why it was possible and appropriate for the court, within the terms of section 29 (2) of that act, to take into account the circumstances of previous offences because they showed an aggravating factor in the instant case. I do not ignore acts of Parliament. To suggest the contrary is not only wrong but a gross libel. I am therefore glad that you have agreed to publish forthwith a retraction and apology as well as this letter. It is true that I have made it clear I consider the 1991 act to be flawed in a number of respects. I support the broad philosophy which inspired it that a custodial sentence should be imposed only where the seriousness of the offending merits it or the protection of the public demands it. But a number of provisions in the act place arbitrary and unworkable restrictions on the discretion of the judge to deal with each case on its merits. I hope that these defects can he cured in the very near future".
792
But this is the quotation which I wish to emphasise, and with which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice concludes the letter:
"However, until they are, it is my duty and that of all the judges to apply the law as Parliament has enacted it. That duty we will fulfil".
What I asked Mr Justice Wood, then president of the EAT, in my letter of 19th March 1993, to do was to assure me that he would apply one of these rules as laid down for the EAT. This rule had been made, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, as long ago as 1976, was modified in 1980 and was still in force in the form then modified in 1991, 1992 and 1993 - that is, in the whole period to which the correspondence referred to in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, relates. I did not ask Mr Justice Wood to adopt my reading of the rule. Contrary to what has been suggested, I had no quarrel with his reading of the rule, as given in his lengthy letter, which preceded the letter of 19th March.
In this case the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, is the rule-making authority under the Act of Parliament. I considered, in view of that fact, that I was entitled to ask Mr. Justice Wood for the assurance I sought. I had already asked for it once in the earlier letter. It was not forthcoming. I asked for it again, and I asked that if he was not prepared to give me this assurance, he should consider his position. That position I had set out in the very first letter I wrote in the correspondence—Letter 7.
At the end of that letter there was a question about Rule 3 —I will come back to this in a moment—and what I was saying in the letter dated 11th March 1992 was this:
"When I met the Deputy Chief Justice on 11 February we agreed that Rule 3(2) should be implemented as soon as possible in order to remove those appeals which clearly have no merit and which do not require a preliminary hearing—a procedure, incidentally, which is not provided for in the statutory provisions. I know you recognise the quality and talents of your Registrar and implementation of Rule 3(2) would, it seems to me, provide an excellent opportunity to utilise her abilities. Of course I value the views of your membership on matters on which they have particular expertise but, in this instance, what is required is that you should implement Rule 3(2) as soon as possible, in accordance with the statutory rules under which you operate".
That is what I was asking at the very beginning of this correspondence. Your Lordships may ask why I should ask that. I think I can answer. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has already read a part of the first memorandum with which this correspondence begins. In that excerpt Mr. Justice Wood is considering whether that rule is appropriate for England and Wales, and considers that it is not appropriate for reasons which he gives—that is the rule which was introduced under the authority of Parliament as long ago as 1976.
I pass now to the next document in the history. It is the one that Mr. Justice Wood sent out as Paper 5 for the agenda of the meeting of 11th March 1992, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington and others referred. He said:
"When the EAT was set up in 1976 many Notices of Appeal raised no arguable question of law and many such cases were rejected by the Registrar under Rule 3 of the Employment Appeal

793
Tribunal Rules 1976. However this power was exercised very carefully and at the outset only in the plainest case was an Appeal rejected".
So there were many such cases, but plain cases, where the appeal was rejected. The history continues and I will refer your Lordships to it in detail. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time reading it in full, but it is important that your Lordships should have it in mind because I do not accept the fundamental premise on which the speeches of my noble and learned friends Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver of Aylmerton are based, for reasons which I shall indicate as I proceed. This document, History of Preliminary Hearings System, goes on to say:
"It was felt by the majority of members in both countries"—
that is, Scotland and England; Wales must be included with England for this purpose—
"that the introduction of preliminary hearings for all appeals which either contained no question of law or where it was doubtful, would ensure that justice was seen to be done by allowing each man to 'have his day in court', a good thing—providing that it would not prove to be too time consuming. This was not a view shared by Lord McDonald".
He was the Scottish judge at that time on the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
It is an interesting fact, if I may pause to make an aside, that Mr. Justice Wood, the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in England, and the two Scottish judges who figure in this correspondence, Lord McDonald and Lord Mayfield, the Scottish members of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, were all holders of the Military Cross.
What happened?
"Refusals by the Registrar fell away with the introduction of doubtful appeals, on 1 October 1985".
In some of the earlier speeches to which your Lordships have been privileged to listen the suggestion was made that the whole procedure of the Employment Appeal Tribunal has been pretty well the same for quite a long period. This is an indication that a very considerable change was made in that procedure on 1st October 1985. What happened was that preliminary hearings—I am going according to what Mr. Justice Wood said—were introduced for all cases. Perhaps I should read the sentence after the one I stopped at so that your Lordships may have a complete view, as this is fundamentally important to my approach to the whole problem. He said:
"Initially both parties were required to attend but time proved that the Respondent was so rarely called to answer that the hearings were made 'ex parte' in 1987".
So it was not a long established procedure.
"The system was introduced in England/Wales for an experimental period with the full intention that if the experiment should succeed it would be considered for Scotland"—
an experiment against a background of statutory rules which required the registrar to consider these matters.
"The experiment did succeed and was shown not only to be faster than the Special Procedure"—
I have not bothered your Lordships with that. It was an intermediate experimental procedure—
"but also to be 'problem free'. It is unfortunate that at the end of the experimental period the many changes in staff at that time meant that the introduction of the PH system into Scotland did not take place. This means that members of the public in England/Wales have what is seen to be 'a fairer system' under the same Act than their counterparts who happen to live in Scotland".
794
The reason it was fairer was that everyone who applied to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in England and Wales got a preliminary hearing, whether or not they had a case in law, whereas in Scotland Rule 3 was being observed and that did not happen. Your Lordships have to ask yourselves the question: if Parliament has set up a statutory system of statutory rules, is it right that in one part of the Employment Appeal Tribunal's jurisdiction that rule should be observed and in the rest of the jurisdiction it should not? The result of that is undoubtedly differences in public perception of the treatment they are getting in the same tribunal. We all know that different judges deal with matters differently. But this is much more fundamental. This is a fundamental difference in procedure between the two parts of the same tribunal, of which Mr. Justice Wood was the president of the whole tribunal. He was the president for Scotland as well as England and Wales.
It seems to be remarkable to suggest that it was so contrary to the conscience of a judge and his judicial oath that as president of a tribunal he was prepared to allow an unjust procedure to operate within his tribunal, of which he was president in Scotland, if he could not tolerate it in England. This matter is narrated at some length. I do not think that I need to refer your Lordships to the rest of that document. But, not surprisingly, it arrived in Scotland. I refer to the letter No. 5, the letter from Lord Mayfield to Mr. Justice Wood dated 6th March 1992, which says:
"One of our Members who intends to be present at the Annual General Meeting on Wednesday, 11th March, has passed to me the Agenda for that Meeting.
I was surprised, putting it mildly, to read the terms of Item 5 of the Agenda which deals, as you know, with the procedure for Preliminary Hearings. Furthermore, I am not able to accept some of the statements and conclusions referred to in the paper headed, History of Preliminary Hearings System.
I have basically two objections to that document. Firstly, as far as Scotland is concerned it does not accurately set out the position and, secondly, I certainly do not agree with the conclusions you have reached, including the sentence about a fairer system in England".
The letter goes on:
"As you know, we have never operated the Preliminary Hearing procedure in Scotland. The procedure in Scotland is (and always has been, under the two judges appointed as the Scottish Judge—Lord McDonald and myself) to follow the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1980".
Those rules are set out and the letter explains that they have always done that. It is an interesting fact that on the second page of the letter he says:
"Up to 1988 the system was that the Registrar in England/Wales dealt with those applications to appeal in Scotland which were being considered for rejection under Rule 3(2)".
Therefore, according to Lord Mayfield, up to 1988 the Registrar was considering under Rule 3(2) whether or not to reject appeals. He did it not only for England and Wales but also for Scotland. In 1988 there had to be a separate provision for Scotland, the reason being that it was taking so long to get an answer from England and they needed to get on. He said:
"I have always been concerned that there should be no backlog of cases awaiting hearing. The system we employ in Scotland has worked very well, and I do not intend to change it. It seems to me that both Lord McDonald and I have been acting under the Rules, and certainly there have been no complaints in Scotland".

795
It is quite clear that Lord McDonald never agreed that it should be instituted in Scotland. The letter from Lord Mayfield was acknowledged in document No. 6 and a handsome apology given by Mr. Justice Wood for what had taken place.
I want to cite one paragraph from that letter. Mr. Justice Wood said:
"As far as I am aware there is no intention whatsoever to suggest any changes in your procedures in Scotland".
These are the procedures under Rule 3(2) to which I have referred. I find it extremely difficult to see how the judge who wrote that, being the president of the tribunal, could consider that the procedures were inconsistent with his judicial oath, having regard to the fact that he was president of that tribunal.
I have already mentioned my letter of 11th March 1992, which is my entry into this correspondence. I mentioned the point that what was wanted was to return to the procedures provided by Parliament; namely, to apply Rule 3(2). A whole year before that I said:
"What is required is that you should implement Rule 3(2) as soon as possible in accordance with the statutory rules under which you operate".
My situation is that all through this correspondence I was concerned to ensure that the rules laid down by Parliament were being operated by Mr. Justice Wood and the Employment Appeal Tribunal as a whole. I was not substituting my reading of the rules for his reading or anything of that kind. I was anxious that he should apply the rules as he understood them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, but could he say whether Mr. Justice Wood ever failed to observe the rules as he, Mr. Justice Wood, understood them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is as clear as a pikestaff. I thought that I had made it clear; but obviously I have failed. I shall try to make it clear now. Mr. Justice Wood was not applying the rule at all at the beginning of this correspondence. He made it perfectly plain, as I understand it, that he did not think that that rule was suitable for use in England and Wales. That is the passage that I read from the very first document. I do not know whether the noble Earl has the document. I regard this as extremely important because it is fundamental to my whole approach to the situation, and I should not like the noble Earl to be in any difficulty about it. On page 5 of the first document he states:
"There are remarkably few cases which are clearly frivolous on the face of the documentation. This is really a case of de minimis. In Scotland an HEO (unqualified) sends an appeal back to the appellant as disclosing no point of law if he so thinks. There is an appeal from him to the Judge. Having considered this rather different procedure I do not consider it desirable here in England and Wales nor do I like it particularly".
The procedure to which he refers is Rule 3 of the employment appeal rules—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but can the noble and learned Lord show us that Mr. Justice Wood was contravening Rule 3(2) as he understood it?
The Lord
Chancellor: My Lords, he was not applying it at all. There is no question of a difficulty of
796
interpretation: he was just not applying the rule at all. He thought it was unsuitable. He did not consider the procedure under the rule,
"desirable here in England and Wales nor do I like it particularly".
He was declining to apply it altogether. It was not a question of the rule as he understood it; he was not applying it at all. That is a much more fundamental point. I hope that I have made it clear now.
That was the position that I encountered. It has been said more than once that I was seeking to rule out the use of the procedures of preliminary hearings in cases that were doubtful. That is not my position and never has. been. What I asked from Mr. Justice Wood in the ultimate letter was, as I said, an assurance that he was. fully applying the rule. If he was not prepared to give me that assurance, he should consider his position.
Your Lordships can read this correspondence from end to end and you will not find any justification offered by Mr. Justice Wood, before I wrote to him on 19th March 1993, for not applying the rules laid down by Parliament that takes any account of his position in relation to the rule.
The waiting time in the EAT had by this time reached up to two years. The effect of failure to apply Rule 3 was that preliminary hearings involving the judge and two lay members were being used where the notice of application disclosed no jurisdiction in the tribunal to entertain the appeal, while people who had undoubted grounds of appeal were kept waiting for the attention of the judge and those members for an unacceptably long time. The rules approved by Parliament had provided a mechanism to hasten matters that was not, so far as I could tell, being fully used.
On 21st March I answered a Starred Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on an alleged instruction that I had issued to the then President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I was also asked to place the documentation in the Library. This I have done. As I have said, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, originally established under Section 87 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, is a tribunal set up to deal with appeals on questions of law arising from any decision of, or in any proceedings before, an industrial tribunal under a number of statutes.
The judges of the tribunal from England and Wales are nominated from time to time by the Lord Chancellor, and the judges from Scotland are appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session. If I had wished to remove Mr. justice Wood from the presidency of the EAT, I could have done so simply by nominating others than he to be judges of the EAT. I had no intention of doing anything of the kind. In addition, non-judicial members are appointed by Her Majesty on the joint recommendation of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Employment. The Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session, appoints one of the judges as President of the Appeal Tribunal. I had appointed Mr. Justice Wood in 1988, and in fact he had served all that time as the President.
The Lord Chancellor again consults the Lord President of the Court Session—the Lord President of

797
the Court of Session is undoubtedly a judicial officer; he is a full-time judge —so far as concerns Scotland when the Lord Chancellor makes rules with respect to proceedings before the appeal tribunal. My function as Lord Chancellor in approving those rules is the fundamental position which entitles me to inquire and seek an assurance, if I have any doubt about it, that the rules are being applied.
Subject to those rules—this is also important—the tribunal has power to regulate its own procedures. The tribunal is subject to the rules. It is not a question of the tribunal being able to dispense with the rules. The tribunal has power to regulate its own procedures, but only subject to those rules. The statutory provisions—the primary legislation and the rules—apply in England, Wales and Scotland.
As has been already said, the rules were made in 1976 by Lord Elwyn-Jones. I think that your Lordships will agree that there could be no fairer person or person more concerned with the rights of the uninitiated, unre-presented litigant than he. The rules were modified by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, described. Those rules were re-enacted by me in November 1993 in consolidated form. On each of those occasions, the rules were laid before Parliament and were made without objection.
The effect of the rules has been expressed, but as it is important for me that your Lordships understand them, perhaps I should say that Rule 3 provides that, where it appears to the registrar that a notice of appeal does not give the appeal tribunal jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, then, subject to the opportunity for the appellant to revise the notice and to express dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the registrar, no further action should be taken on the appeal. The rules are plain on that: no further action should be taken on the appeal. Where the appellant expresses his dissatisfaction in writing, the rules further provide that the papers should be placed before the President or a judge for his direction as to whether any further action should be taken on the appeal.
I have already mentioned the beginning of the correspondence by me. I go on to mention a letter of 24th January 1992 from Raymond Potter, the head of the court service in my department, which he wrote to Sir John on my behalf pointing to the clear intention in the rules that Rule 3 should be operated as a mechanism for filtering out notices of appeal which failed to establish the EAT's jurisdiction. That letter also makes quite clear the view that preliminary hearings can serve a useful purpose. It said:
"This is not meant to imply that preliminary hearings serve no useful purpose. It is clear from your [Mr. Justice Wood's] paper that, when an appeal is to go forward, the preliminary hearing provides an ideal forum for giving directions for the progress of the appeal and identifying 'fast lane' cases. Such hearings would also be useful where the Registrar was in some doubt as to the merits of a case".
I have never suggested that it is not appropriate to use preliminary hearings in a doubtful case. What I have suggested, and what I think Mr. Justice Wood agreed,
798
was that it was not appropriate for preliminary hearings to be used in a case in which it was clear that there was no jurisdiction in the tribunal.
The paragraph concludes:
"Use of Rule 3 in conjunction with Preliminary Hearings might result in the best of both worlds".
In my view, that is a perfectly reasonable procedure, although it is not the procedure in Scotland where they do not have preliminary hearings at all. But in England and Wales, in my view, that was a perfectly proper suggestion.
Sir John replied on 27th January saying that he intended to raise the issue at the forthcoming annual general meeting. Your Lordships have the paper to which I have referred.
As I have already explained, the Lord Chancellor has a responsibility for making those procedural rules. I found it difficult, therefore, to accept that a single tribunal controlled by a single president should adopt such widely different attitudes to the practical implementation of the same rules as matters of practice of the tribunal.
There followed an exchange of correspondence and a series of meetings between Sir John Wood and me. Some changes in practice were made in England and Wales in May 1992, but in reviewing the statistics of the EAT at the end of 1992, I remained doubtful that the rule was being fully applied. There is no doubt that on 1st May 1992, new systems were introduced by Sir John Wood, the precise detail of which he did not describe to me but they were closer to the Rule 3 procedure than he was operating at the beginning of this correspondence, when he was not using it at all.
The fact that I remained doubtful that the rule was being fully applied led to my letter of 19th March 1993 to Sir John. In that letter, as I said, I asked Sir John, once again, to give me his assurance that he would implement Rule 3 as required by Parliament.
As I believe this is important, I should like to refer your Lordships to the precise context. The letter from Sir John Wood, to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred, is document No. 15 of 5th March 1993. Before I deal with that document in any detail, I should refer to my letter of 5th February in which I conclude by saying:
"There is an urgent need to address the growing backlog of cases and I would be grateful if you would write to me with your assurance that you intend implementing Rule 3 in full before the end of this term".
There is no question of interpretation or anything of that sort in that paragraph. I am asking him to implement Rule 3, not as I understand it but as it is set down under the authority of Parliament.
In response to that, I received what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, described as the long and careful letter of 5th March 1993. Mr. Justice Wood says:
"I have given the legal issues which you discussed on 1 February very careful consideration, and have taken the opportunity to discuss them with some of my senior colleagues. I will set out the legal position as I (and, as I understand, they) see it"
Then follows a description of three possible outcomes:
"'The first is that the grounds stated in the notice of appeal disclose a point of law. Then, clearly, the appeal proceeds under the Rules.

799
The second is that the grounds of appeal stated in the notice of appeal do not give the EAT jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Registrar then takes the action prescribed by Rule 3(2), which may result in no further action being taken on the appeal. But the appellant may try again. If he then shows grounds giving the EAT jurisdiction, the appeal will go ahead. If the Registrar maintains the view originally held, the appellant will be so informed and if the appellant expresses dissatisfaction in writing, the Registrar is to place the papers before the President or a judge for directions whether any further action should be taken.
If the President or judge shares the Registrar's judgment of the notice of appeal, the order can be made that no further action will be taken on the appeal. The Rules do not empower the President or judge to dismiss the appeal, and the language of the Rules shows that there is an appeal in existence even though defective".
I do not think it matters whether or not that is so.
"But that is not a problem. The appeal can either remain on the file in limbo or steps can be taken to dispose of it by dismissal before the Appeal Tribunal. This latter seems to me to be the tidier course, and will not take up time"—
that is to say, a straightforward dismissal by the tribunal on the papers. However, your Lordships will notice that Mr. Justice Wood gives me no undertaking in that respect that preliminary hearings are not used on the second outcome.
"The third possible outcome is that the grounds of appeal are stated in a way which leaves the Registrar (and if consulted, the President or a judge) uncertain whether the appellant's grounds are grounds of law or not".
Mr. Justice Wood then goes on to explain that in some detail.
"For example, a complaint that the Industrial Tribunal should not have made a certain finding may relate to the weight of the evidence … or to the existence of any evidence",
and so on.
"It was in this class of case (numerically very much larger than the second class … which led Raymond Phillips in 1977 to introduce the preliminary procedure to decide whether in one of these ambiguous cases an appellant had grounds which gave the EAT jurisdiction or not".
I accept that that is an entirely appropriate thing to do; indeed, I have never doubted its appropriateness. Your Lordships will read the letter from end to end without finding any assurance that Mr. Justice Wood intends fully to apply the nile. My response (on 19th March) was to say that I was disappointed by his reply. I said:
"I did not seek further discussion of Rule 3"—
in other words, I was not asking, and never did ask, for further description of the effect of Rule 3—
"but had sought to make it clear to you that I was not prepared to accept preliminary hearings being held where Rule 3 provides a cheap and expeditious procedure for final disposal of a purported appeal"—
and only in that case. I continued:
"I ask you again for your immediate assurance that Rule 3 is henceforth to be applied in full and that preliminary hearings are not being used where no jurisdiction is shown in a notice of appeal".
That is the phrase used in Rule 3(2). It is also the test used for the second outcome in the letter from Mr. Justice Wood of 5th March 1993. I was asking Mr. Justice Wood not to apply the rule as I had understood it. I was asking him to give me the assurance that he was applying the rule which Parliament had laid down to regulate the affairs of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I see that my noble and learned friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am much obliged. Can my noble and learned friend tell the House exactly what are his criticisms of the letter from Mr. Justice Wood of 5th March 1993?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no particular criticism of the letter. I am saying that the letter sets out Mr. Justice Wood's understanding of the rule. I have no quarrel with that. However, what I did find absent from the letter was an undertaking by Mr. Justice Wood that he would apply the rule. That is an important difference—that he would apply the rule. Your Lordships may think that that distinction is not important, but I believe that I will be able to show the House that it is.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am struggling to try to get to the truth of the matter. I just do not understand—and I apologise to all the other distinguished Members here who do—the status of such rules of Parliament. Is the Lord Chancellor the final arbiter of their meaning? Alternatively. is there some other body which is able to determine how the rules should be applied if there is a difference between a judge and the Lord Chancellor? For example, is there any appeal available?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if there is a question of the meaning of the rule between myself and somebody else, I could have that determined in the court, if it were necessary. But this was not a question of the meaning of the rule. He was setting out the meaning of the rule at great length but I had not asked for that. What I had asked him for was an assurance that he was applying the rule, because your Lordships will remember that this correspondence started with an analysis by Mr. Justice Wood in which he said this rule was not appropriate for England and Wales for reasons which he gave.
Parliament, or at least the Lord Chancellor under the authority of Parliament, had enacted the rule for England and Wales and had done so, in its form then in operation, in 1980. Therefore the opinion of Mr. Justice Wood as to whether or not it was a good rule was of absolutely no consequence. So far as I was concerned, there was no dispute whatever between me and Mr. Justice Wood about the meaning of the rule. What I wanted to know was whether he was applying the rule, and if he was applying the rule there was no problem about him saying so. He could give me that undertaking perfectly well. But if he was not applying the rule, why not—not or else. Why not? "What is your position? You are a statutory tribunal operating statutory rules. If you are not able to give me an assurance that you are applying the rules applicable to the tribunal, what is your explanation? What is your position? Consider it very carefully", because it must be quite wrong for a judge, subject to rules laid down by Parliament, not to apply them. That is the crux of this matter.
The response from Mr. Justice Wood to my letter makes no reference whatever to terminating his position either as the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal or as a judge. None whatever. I am not directing this correspondence to anyone except Mr. Justice Wood; and he certainly did not in this letter of reply make any reference whatsoever to his entitlement to office as a judge, or as the President of the Appeal Tribunal. What he says, in effect, is "I am not giving this undertaking because it is contrary to my judicial oath".

801
I summarise as your Lordships have heard the whole letter. The point I make about that is that the judicial oath is that, "I would write to all manner of persons according to the laws and usages of this realm". So far as this is concerned, one of these laws was Rule 3 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal rules. I still do not understand why that undertaking was not given, but there was hope in his letter of 23rd April 1993 which states at the foot of page 1:
"In May 1992, in anticipation of the vast increase in the number of appeals, we introduced a new system under Rule 3".
That is when he began to move from his original position as stated at the beginning of the document to the operation of Rule 3. The letter continues:
"We would not claim that it is perfect, and with experience it is being refined".
So Mr. Justice Wood was telling me that procedures in his EAT were moving, and I was delighted with that and anxious to see that that would happen. That is the reason I gave no further response to Mr. Justice Wood, because I had seen before that he reacted quite strongly in his paper that went round the EAT to pressure being put on him to apply the rules as Parliament had enacted them. But then after a while, in May 1992, he did in fact make a move. I had hoped that the corresponding thing would happen after April 1993 and that he would fully apply the rule.
He states further in his letter:
"The Preliminary Hearing Procedures are not ultra vires".
I have never said that they were, and it is quite clear from my letter that I was only objecting to their use, or asking that they be not used, in the case where no jurisdiction was revealed on the face of the notice, which was the second outcome in Mr. Justice Wood's particular enunciation. That was the second outcome in Mr. Justice Wood's enunciation.
As has been said, shortly afterwards Mr. Justice Wood intimated his formal resignation, for reasons unconnected with this matter.
In my submission, what I was doing was well within the branch that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, set out in opening this debate: namely, that there were statutory rules applying to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and that the Lord Chancellor was the authority to make those rules. I believed that I was entitled to have an assurance from Mr. Justice Wood that he was applying those rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said in his exposition of the long letter that Mr. Justice Wood had written that in that letter he had said that he was applying the rules. But your Lordships will recall that in his article in the New Law Journal Sir Francis Purchas tells us that there was a full and useful discussion at the AGM as a result of which a new form of procedure was introduced in London as from 1st May 1992.
Therefore, the idea that this was an established system of procedure that had been working in the EAT for years is certainly not in accordance with that statement. He continued that this was in use during the summer and autumn of 1992 without, so far as Mr. Justice Wood was concerned, any apparently adverse reaction from the Lord Chancellor.
Earl Russell: My Lords, while I was looking for something, I found in Mr. Justice Wood's letter of 30th June 1992 these words:
"In order to eliminate the present differences of view about the proper understanding of Rule 3 which undoubtedly exist".
I find it hard to reconcile those words with the view that Mr. Justice Wood was refusing to apply the rule as he understood it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all I can tell your Lordships is that I was perfectly content with the rule as he understood it. The meaning of the rule as he understood it is set out in great detail in that long letter which preceded mine. The differences of view about the rule to which Mr. Justice Wood referred in the letter to which the noble Earl has just referred are differences of view which were being considered at the time he was initiating his new procedure on 1st May 1992. Once he had set that up, so far as I was concerned, there was no question about the meaning of the rule. I was not arguing about the meaning of the rule. I was arguing that the rule should be applied and asking him for an assurance that the rule would be applied.
I had been setting out the new procedure set up in May 1992, namely:
"On receipt the notice of appeal was examined by the Registrar. If a clear point of law was raised by the notice the appeal would be set down in the full hearing list. If the notice was not clear or was otherwise unsatisfactory the Registrar sent a proforma letter asking the appellant to reconsider and, if necessary, to amend his notice. It was also made clear that if no reply was received within 28 days the appeal would be deemed to have been withdrawn. If the notice of appeal, whether amended or not, was re-served, the Registrar could help an appellant in person to rephrase some aspects, but usually the file was submitted to the judge directly".
These are the important parts:
"The judge had three options: first, he could send the appeal forward to a full hearing".
There is no difficulty about that.
"Secondly, if he considered that justice required some further investigation in the presence of the appellant he could direct that it was to be listed for a preliminary hearing".
That was the third option in his long letter. The third option in this catalogue is the second option in the letter.
"Thirdly, if he took the view that the proposed appeal was hopeless the appeal would be dismissed by the tribunal on the papers without a hearing".
That accords exactly with Rule 3(2).
"However any order made in this way expressly provided that application could be made within 28 days for an oral hearing ex parte. This procedure was adopted in London from 1st May 1992".
If that is correct—and I have no reason to suppose that it is incorrect—then in cases where the appeal had been decided by the judge to be clearly hopeless, raising no jurisdiction point, and where the rule then required that no further steps would be taken, the tribunal in London was always adding that an application could be made for an oral hearing within 28 days.
I can understand in the light of that why Mr Justice Wood was reluctant to give me the undertaking that I sought because in fact he was allowing for oral preliminary hearings to take place in a case which he regarded as plainly hopeless on the papers. In my submission, Rule 3 required that no further steps should be taken in that case in the way of any kind of oral hearing.

803
That is the situation so far as I am concerned. I consider that in the exercise of my office as Lord Chancellor I was entitled to seek an assurance from Mr. Justice Wood that he apply the rules which Parliament had provided; and that if he were not to give me such assurance, the position that he took up should be explained. Of course if I wished to take the matter further, I would need to resort to judicial proceedings by way of a judicial review.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that the EAT is a superior court of record and not susceptible to judicial review?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that it is a superior court of record. However, I believe that the question of judicial review in respect of it would have been a matter for consideration in relation to the procedure that was adopted. I did not, of course, take this further. I said that I would have to consider what else I could do about it. But I believe that if I wished to take the matter further, I would have had to consider further procedure.
I, of course, know that the Employment Appeal Tribunal is a superior court of record. That is made plain in the statutory provisions. But obviously I was anxious that the matter would be resolved. I said, and I adhere to the view, that there was hope for me in the fact that Mr. Justice Wood said in his letter that the procedures were being refined. I hoped—and hoped most fervently—that the result would be that he would be able to give me the undertaking which I sought: that the rules enacted by Parliament affecting his tribunal would be fully applied by him.
Many noble Lords have said that this has been a most unhappy debate. Your Lordships will understand that it has been a most unhappy matter for me ever since this matter arose. I certainly very greatly regret that this arose between me and Mr. Justice Wood; and certainly looking back on it now with hindsight I wish that I had expressed myself more plainly. But I am absolutely satisfied that the basic matter that I was seeking is a matter to which I was well entitled under the law of this land and was in no way prejudicial to the proper judicial independence of the judge. I am a strong believer in the independence of the judiciary individually and as a whole; and so long as I have the privilege of holding the office which I do, I shall do everything in my power to uphold that. But it is part of the principle that that independence is exercised according to and under the rule of law and I have responsibility for that also.
Some wider matters have been raised in the debate, going beyond what was mentioned in the Question. The
804
office of the Lord Chancellor is a difficult one: I can attest to that. However, I do not think that it is easy to work out, against the background of our system, a good alternative that would protect, as this office does, the independence of the judiciary. I believe that it is important that in this country the Supply for the Crown is voted by the House of Commons. Therefore it is necessary that there be some person accountable to Parliament who has responsibility for the courts. I believe that the arrangement under which the Lord Chancellor, as head of the judiciary, is also responsible to Parliament for the administration of the courts is probably as good an arrangement as we can achieve. I am open to detailed suggestions as to how this might be done. I know that some of my noble and learned friends in previous incarnations have been asked to provide me with some detail of their thoughts on these matters. However, I know that it is so difficult that the thoughts in writing are still awaited.
As I said at the outset, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for raising the matter, and also for the manner in which he raised it. It was put forward in a fair manner, giving me an opportunity to explain the matter fully. I greatly regret that I have taken much longer in doing so than I should normally have liked to, but I regard the matter as of fundamental importance, as your Lordships have done. It is important that your Lordships should understand that I was not telling this judge how to do his work. All I was telling him was that I wished him to give me the assurance that he was applying the rules which had been enacted under the authority of Parliament by my predecessors as Lord Chancellor.
I utterly repudiate any suggestion that I have wrongfully interfered with the independence of the judiciary or that I have in any way misled your Lordships at any time in the answers that I have given. I thoroughly believe that my answer was as truthful and as full as I could possibly give in the circumstances of an oral Question.
I also take the view that these are matters of importance about which we need continually to be on our guard. I am extremely sorry if I have caused any offence whatever to Mr Justice Wood. If I could have thought of better language, with hindsight I would have used it. But I was thinking entirely of the position which he had as a judge in a statutory tribunal with statutory rules. That is what I had in mind, nothing else. The letter was directed to him and not to anyone else.
I am grateful to your Lordships for your patience in listening to this, I do not wish to trespass on that patience any longer.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before one o'clock.

  MR. CHARLES REDMAN
  MR. CHARLES REDMAN
  BOSNIA: AIR POWER USE, 10 APRIL
  BOSNIA: AIR POWER USE, 10 APRIL
  NATO UNITY
  NATO UNITY
  SUDAN
  SUDAN
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  PRESCRIPTION CHARGE INCREASE
  PRESCRIPTION CHARGE INCREASE
  ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN: EOC PROPOSALS
  ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN: EOC PROPOSALS
  PROTECTION MONEY: TAX RELIEF
  PROTECTION MONEY: TAX RELIEF
  SERVICEWOMEN: PREGNANCY
  SERVICEWOMEN: PREGNANCY
  BRITISH COAL PENSIONS: AGREEMENT
  BRITISH COAL PENSIONS: AGREEMENT