I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give persons a right of access to any information held by any organisation for the purpose of blacklisting.

The Bill would give people rights that they are denied at present because of a loophole in the Data Protection Act 1984. At present, anyone can seek information held about himself by any organisation, but that right extends only to information held on computer. Paper and card indexes are not covered by the Act. Therefore, it is not so much a loophole; it is more a yawning chasm through which any organisation which spies on innocent people going about their perfectly legitimate business can operate at will and with no possibility of redress for those whom it injures, provided that it keeps its information on cards and not on computer tape.

This is nonsensical. It is a blatant defiance of Parliament's intentions to give people access to information held about themselves, and it is an attack on the civil liberties of British citizens. It is astounding to think that such activities are perfectly legal, so their victims cannot take action. One organisation in particular, the Economic League, which was founded in 1919 and contributes to the Conservative party, recently had its activities exposed to the public gaze. It has long been suspected and known by inference that that organisation keeps information about individuals which it supplies to employers. Now we have seen proof on our television screens. One of my constituents was astonished to learn that she was on the list because of her active participation in Anti-Apartheid. Until a television programme producer showed her the Economic League's blacklist she had no idea she had ever come to the League's attention.

Other people have written to me since learning of my Bill, and one in particular, Mr. John Geleit, who was assistant secretary of the London region National Graphical Association, has been trying unsuccessfully since October 1987 to make the Economic League correct statements made about him that are wrong. He is described in the Economic League's "News Review" of June 1987 as a Communist, but he is a member of the Labour party and writes that he has never been a member of any party that can be construed as being Communist. We seem to be living in McCarthyite days when people feel forced to declare the famous words from that evil cold war era that was a blot on American history:

"I am not nor have I ever been".

We have come to a sad state of affairs when people feel forced to make such declarations.

The last piece of correspondence from the Economic League to him is dated 19 January 1988 and confirms:

"There is no entry in our computer records"—

the House will note that it says "computer records"—

"in respect of yourself."—

The Economic League has not apologised to my constituent nor explained why it has been secretly blacklisting her—and it does not stop at Anti-Apartheid. Its own publication, "Companies Under Attack", lists in addition to Anti-Apartheid as suspect organisations: Oxfam, Christian Aid, CND, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Low Pay Unit, and many more. Most of us would regard such organisations as entirely blameless and, indeed, praiseworthy. We would think that anyone who devotes voluntary effort to such causes deserves a lot of credit. All these organisations are completely open to public inspection and have no secrets from anyone. Their committee members' names and political affiliations, if any, are openly stated.

The Economic League, on the contrary, has kept its existence so quiet that many members of the general public will never have heard of it until recent months, but many of their employers have. It is known with certainty that more than 300 companies subscribe to this organisation and it has been surmised that there could be as many as 2,000. In 1986 alone, over 200,000 names were checked by member companies. However, it is difficult to prevent those who wish to engage in the contemptible activity of spying on their fellow citizens from doing so. By their very nature, such activities are hard to detect because people generally are trustful and open and do not suspect colleagues of sinister activities.

Therefore, I have drafted my Bill not to prevent the unpreventable but to require the following.

First, before any employer seeks information on a prospective employee from any organisation that holds information for the purpose of blacklisting, he or she shall obtain the permission of the job applicant.

Secondly, the job applicant shall be given a copy of all information held about her or him by the organisation or organisations to which the prospective employer has applied, whether the information is held on computer tape or indexes or any other method of holding information.

Thirdly, any organisation holding information on individuals' political views, memberships and activities shall send, on request and within 40 days, a copy of all such information held about her or him, no matter the form in which such information is held, so that a check can be made on the accuracy of this information, action can be taken to correct or erase factually inaccurate data and, as with the Data Protection Act, a person may seek compensation for factual mistakes in the data which cause financial loss or physical injury or distress.

The Bill, if successful, would deal with an organisation that is

"unaccountable, unofficial, funded by business management to pry into legitimate political activity … which is becoming a police force … and is highly dangerous and quite improper."

These words are not mine; they are the words of John Alderson, a former chief constable.

I hope that the Bill will have wide support, and I urge every hon. Member to protect the civil liberties of her or his constituents by calling for time to be made available to debate the Bill at a later date.

In conclusion, I thank all those who wrote to me to express their concern or to give accounts of their own dealings with the Economic League.

I wish to oppose the Bill because it is clearly vindictive and selective. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) knows that there is no chance of it becoming law, so she has used the opportunity to attack a specific organisation, the Economic League.

The attack in the Bill is part of a campaign of attack against the Economic League which was started a year ago by Left-wing journalists on the "World in Action" programme. Indeed, "World in Action" has made no fewer than three programmes on that organisation in the past 12 months. The biased Left-wing record of Granada's "World in Action" programme is well documented. The Media Monitoring Unit report for 1986 shows that 54·2 per cent. of Granada's political programmes were biased to the Left. We should remember that by law programmes are supposed to be politically balanced. In 1987, the Media Monitoring Unit reported that bias in "World in Action" programmes has risen to 68·7 per cent. No doubt the broadcasting by Granada of programmes which are so consistently politically biased will be considered when the ITV contracts come up for renewal—[Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but again I say to the House that we must give each other a fair hearing. It is quite wrong to barrack from a sedentary position.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.

The "World in Action" programmes relating to the Economic League were a mixture of truth, half-truth, lies and fiction. As I had read in the press that the hon. Member for Maryhill was intending to use the Bill to attack the Economic League, I did a little research into the organisation because I did not know a great deal about it. I had seen one of the "World in Action" programmes, but, apart from that, I knew very little about it. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Maryhill did not take the opportunity to find out a little more about the organisation, as I believe that such an opportunity was offered to her by the director general of the Economic League.

The Economic League was set up in 1919 to promote democracy, free enterprise and freedom. It promotes a better understanding of the economic facts of life, for example, by producing such publications as a recent document on British manufacturing. Part of that work involves monitoring the activities of political extremists of both the far Left and the far Right, as well as those of anarchists. Consequently, it can give companies factual information about political extremists who might try to gain employment solely to cause strikes and disruption from political motives.

We know only too well that such people exist. Everyone has heard of "Red Robbo" and the mole, Alan Thornett. Last year, the Evening Standard was able to unveil the plot to take over a British Telecom branch in the City of London. Only recently British Rail had to sack a Socialist Worker party activist who was deliberately causing industrial havoc at King's Cross. One can imagine how much trouble British Rail and its customers would have been saved if the company had been aware of what that individual was likely to get up to.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have no intention of giving way. This is a ten-minute Bill.

The Economic League monitors all far Left and far Right organisations. It must be a pretty frightful job because these are just some of the Left-wing organisations' newspapers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Maryhill is worried about the league. Perhaps one reason why some Opposition Members are making such a noise from sedentary positions is that they are worried that the Economic League may have something on them if they are Left-wing extremists—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I think that I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I hope that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is not suggesting that the Economic League might, in the hon. Gentleman's words, have anything "on" anyone in this House.

I was going to be very helpful to any hon. Members who might be afraid about that and inform them that the Economic League would be very happy to tell them what information it is holding on them, if indeed it holds any such information. Hon. Members simply have to ring the Economic League and ask for the information.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would seem that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) is making an admission on behalf of the Economic League that it carries out systematic surveillance of Members of this House. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will ask the hon. Gentleman to make clear whether that is the case because clearly it would raise serious implications if it were true.

I agree. Will the hon. Member for Colne Valley make it absolutely clear that he is not seeking to cast aspersions on any hon. Member, on either side of the House?

I do not think that I was casting any aspersions. In fact—

Order. It would help the House if the hon. Gentleman made that absolutely clear. He made a veiled allegation that that was the case.

I have no intention of casting aspersions; I do not want to do that. If any Opposition Members, or other hon. Members, fear that their names might be on a list held by the Economic League, they simply have to ring the league and ask whether that is the case. That is all they have to do. [Interruption.]

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will collect his papers and then we can continue.

The hon. Member for Maryhill is not in the least interested in the facts and the truth about the organisation. She is trying to discredit an organisation which does an effective and efficient job in exposing militant industrial saboteurs. That is clearly a function which many Opposition Members do not like, and they have a vested interest in trying to prevent that work from being performed properly and efficiently. Do Opposition Members believe that it is sensible that a responsible employer with a large ethnic minority work force should be aware that someone whom that employer is considering appointing as personnel manager has a track record of activism in the National Front? Do Opposition Members believe that a company should be aware of that important point?

The Bill is selective, vindictive and ill thought out. It is fraught with implications which have not been properly thought through. I hope that the House will join me in opposing the Bill, which would add nothing to the legislation of this House.