PROCEDURE

The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 9 July 1997 within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 22954/93) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Commission under Article 25 by Mr Mobin Ahmed, Mr Dennis Perrin, Mr Ray Bentley and Mr David John Brough, all British citizens, on 21 September 1993. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46). The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 § 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 30).

The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio Sir John Freeland, the elected judge of British nationality (Article 43 of the Convention), and Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President of the Court (Rule 21 § 4 (b)). On 27 August 1997, in the presence of the Registrar, the President of the Court, Mr R. Ryssdal, drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely Mr R. Macdonald, Mr C. Russo, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr J. De Meyer, Mr D. Gotchev, Mr P. Kūris and Mr P. van Dijk (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 § 5). Subsequently, Mr L.-E. Pettiti and Mr R. Pekkanen replaced Mr Macdonald and Mr Russo who were unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rule 22 § 1).

As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 § 6), Mr Bernhardt, acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the United Kingdom Government (“the Government”), the applicants’ lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 § 1 and 38). Pursuant to the orders made in consequence, the Registrar received the applicants’ memorial on 22 December 1997 and the Government’s memorial on 15 January 1998. A schedule to the applicants’ memorial setting out details of their claims under Article 50 of the Convention was received at the registry on 22 January 1998. An amended schedule of claims was filed with the registry on 27 April 1998. The Government’s responses to the applicants’ claims were filed with the registry on 21 April and 18 May 1998. The applicants filed observations in reply on 29 May 1998.

On 2 September 1997 the President of the Chamber granted Liberty, a non-governmental organisation based in London, leave to submit written comments on the case (Rule 37 § 2). These were received on 12 January 1998 and subsequently communicated to the Agent of the Government, the representative of the applicants and the Delegate of the Commission for possible observations. No observations were submitted.

In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 22 April 1998. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr C. Whomersley, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent, Mr J. Morris QC, Attorney-General, Mr J. Eadie, Barrister-at-Law, Counsel, Mr I. MacLeod, Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, Mr P. Rowsell, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Mr D. Steele, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Advisers; (b) for the Commission Mr N. Bratza, Delegate; (c) for the applicants Mr J. Goudie QC, Mr A. Lynch, Barrister-at-Law, Counsel, Mr B. Banks, Solicitor. The Court heard addresses by Mr Bratza, Mr Goudie and Mr Morris.

AS TO THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. The applicants

Mr Mobin Ahmed, Mr Dennis Perrin, Mr Ray Bentley and Mr David Brough are all British citizens, born in 1941, 1948, 1947 and 1932 respectively. They live in London, Yelverton, Edgware and Exeter respectively. At the relevant time they were each permanently employed in different capacities by various local authorities. Their precise status and functions are described in Section C below. The background to their complaints to the Convention institutions is constituted by the enactment and implementation of legislative measures designed to limit the involvement of certain categories of local government officials, such as themselves, in political activities. The history of the enactment of the relevant measures as well as their purport and scope are described in Section B below. The impact of the measures on the applicants, all persons considered holders of politically restricted posts within the meaning of the applicable legislation, is described in Section C below.

B. The adoption of the Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990

1. The political background to the adoption of the Regulations

Against the background of the increasing politicisation of local government and attendant problems in respect of the relationship between elected members and local government officers, the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales, appointed on 5 February 1985 a committee (“the Widdicombe Committee”) to inquire, inter alia, into the respective roles of elected members and officers of local government authorities and to make any necessary recommendations for strengthening the democratic process.

On 9 May 1986, after receiving evidence from 138 local government authorities and over 500 other organisations and individuals, the Widdicombe Committee submitted its report. The Committee firmly endorsed the continuation of the tradition of politically impartial local government officers having regard in particular to the roles of senior officers as managers, advisers and arbitrators in the day-to-day functioning of local government. In his foreword to the final report the Chairman of the Committee wrote: “6. Although most of the problems we have perceived have been ones of uncertain relations, there have been some cases, albeit a few, where power has been abused.” In the Chairman’s view, the recent sharpening of the political intensity of local politics was reflected in the relations between elected council members and local government officers and that the trend towards greater politicisation might be a source of future problems unless recommendations were made in order to provide a framework able to cope with it. With regard to the importance of the impartiality of local government officers, the Widdicombe Committee concluded that: “6.141. The overwhelming view in the evidence we have received has been that officers (subject to very limited and closely defined exceptions) should continue to serve the council as a whole. … There has been equally wide agreement that the public service tradition of a permanent corps of politically impartial officers should be retained. … 6.180. Public service in the United Kingdom is founded on a tradition of a permanent corps of politically neutral officers serving with equal commitment whatever party may be in political control. … 6.182. Local government in the United Kingdom has traditionally been based on the same public service tradition as central government, but this has been a matter of convention and practice. … 6.186. The issue of principle is therefore straightforward. There must continue to be a system of permanent and politically neutral officers appointed on the basis of merit. The issue which we need to consider is whether new machinery or rules are required to ensure this, and if so on what basis.”

To ensure that senior officers continued to discharge their functions in a manner which was impartial from both a subjective and an objective point of view, the Widdicombe Committee in paragraph 6.217 of its report recommended that: “(a) the legislation should be amended so that persons who are councillors or who are standing for election as councillors, or who have been councillors within the last year, may not be employed by another authority at the rank of principal officer or above; (b) the Local Authorities’ Conditions of Service Advisory Board should take steps to include in the terms and conditions of officers at the rank of principal officer and above a prohibition on political activity, including: (i) standing for, and holding, public elected office; (ii) holding office in a political party; (iii) speaking or writing in public in a personal capacity in a way that might be regarded as engaging in party political debate; and (iv) canvassing at elections; (c) if the changes recommended at (b) are not made to officers’ terms and conditions, legislation should be introduced to similar effect.”

2. The adoption of the Regulations

Following the publication of the recommendations of the Widdicombe Committee, on 16 November 1989 the House of Commons passed the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (“the Act”), which empowered the Secretary of State for the Environment to make regulations to restrict the political activities of certain categories of local government officers. The Act entered into force on 29 November 1989.

The Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations 1990 (“the Regulations”) were made under section 1(5) of the Act on 4 April 1990. They were laid before Parliament the following day and came into force on 1 May 1990. The Regulations applied to all persons holding a politically restricted post as defined in section 2(1) of the Act. This term covers three broad categories of local government officials: the most senior post-holders in local government (category one); officials remunerated in excess of a prescribed level and whose posts are listed for the purposes of the application of the Regulations (category two); and officials paid less than the prescribed level but who hold a listed post (category three). Each local authority was obliged to draw up a list of posts falling within the second and third categories (section 2(2)). A local government officer in the second and third categories could apply to an independent adjudicator to have his or her post removed from the list of posts to which the Regulations applied (section 3). All local government officials employed in these categories at the time of the entry into force of the Regulations were deemed, according to regulation 3(1), to be subject to the measures. A more detailed analysis of the contents of the Act and the Regulations is set out at paragraphs 26–33 below.

C. The effect of the Regulations on the applicants

1. Mr Ahmed

The first applicant, Mr Ahmed, was a solicitor employed by the London Borough of Hackney. Although his salary fell below the level prescribed in section 2(2)(a) of the Act (see paragraphs 12 above and especially 30 below), making him a category three officer, the Council pursuant to section 2(2)(c) of the Act included his post in the list of politically restricted posts because, in its opinion, his post involved giving advice on a regular basis to committees of the Council, namely the Housing Benefits Review Board, the Housing Development Sub-Committee and the Environmental Sub-Committee (see paragraph 30 below).

Mr Ahmed was adopted as Labour candidate for election to the London Borough of Enfield in 1990, but was obliged to withdraw his candidature as a result of the Regulations. On 7 March 1990 he applied for removal of his job description from the list of politically restricted posts (see paragraphs 12 above and especially 32 below). The Council confirmed that Mr Ahmed had not attended committees during the previous twelve months, but stated that he would be involved in giving advice to committees in future, and would attend on a more regular basis. The Council did not provide therefore a certificate stating that he did not give advice regularly. The adjudicator replied to the Council on 30 March 1990 that Mr Ahmed’s application for exemption could not therefore be granted.

2. Mr Perrin

Prior to his retirement, the second applicant, Mr Perrin, was Principal Valuer with the Devon County Council (a category three officer). He was responsible for leading, directing and developing the Council’s area valuation staff. His post required him to give regular advice to the Council’s committees, including strategy advice on key estate management issues, and to speak to the media. Accordingly his post was included in the list of politically restricted posts kept by the Council in accordance with section 2(2) of the Act (see paragraph 12 above and especially paragraph 31 below).

On 19 February 1990 Mr Perrin applied for exemption from political restrictions on the ground that although he advised the Council at meetings and spoke to the media, the advice was “factual valuation information regarding the acquisition, disposal and management of property”. His application for exemption was refused on 20 March 1990. The adjudicator wrote: “I am satisfied that the duties of your post do fall within section 2(3) of the Act in that you do regularly attend committee meetings of the authority to give advice. Your authority do state that this advice does not extend to ‘policy advice’, but the Act itself makes no distinction between types of advice. I am not prepared, therefore, to grant an exemption under section 3(4) of the Act.”

As a result of the Regulations, Mr Perrin had to give up his position as Vice-Chair and Property Officer of the Exeter Constituency Labour Party, and had to refrain from supporting and assisting Labour candidates in Exeter City Council elections, including his wife, who was a candidate in May 1990 and May 1991. He also reduced his involvement in trade union activities.

3. Mr Bentley

The third applicant, Mr Bentley, is a planning manager with Plymouth City Council. He resigned from his position as Chairman of Torridge and West Devon Constituency Labour Party because of the Regulations, and was also restricted in canvassing for his wife who stood as the only Labour Councillor for the West Devon Borough Council, and in giving radio interviews in his capacity as Chairman of the Plymouth Health Emergency, a body concerned with National Health policies.

The monitoring officer of the Council classified Mr Bentley’s post as one that was politically sensitive (a category one post) and appropriately subject to political restrictions under section 2(3) of the Act (see paragraph 30 below). The reasons for the classification included that Mr Bentley was head of the Council’s corporate policy unit, that he was responsible directly to the head of the Council’s paid service, that his post was responsible for policy analysis and research, that he represented the Council on a transport steering group involving other authorities and organisations, and that, in the twelve months prior to 31 August 1990, he attended three meetings of the Council’s Policy and Resources (Finance sub-) Committee and advised on four separate issues of public transport. The monitoring officer considered that Mr Bentley’s post also fell within section 2(7)(a) and (b) of the Act, and was therefore politically restricted in any event (see paragraph 28 below).

Mr Bentley applied for exemption from political restrictions. On 19 November 1990 the adjudicator underlined that he regarded his duties as limited to considering applications concerning restrictions under section 2(2) of the Act. He stated that although the Council may have identified the post as being politically restricted, it was not “politically restricted because of that fact, but because it is explicitly covered by section 2(1)(c) of the Act. I therefore do not consider it necessary or desirable to address the question of whether this post meets the criteria for inclusion in the list of posts under section 2(2) or for exemption from that list, unless or until it is established that the post is not covered by section 2(1)(c).”

4. Mr Brough

The fourth applicant, Mr Brough, is employed by the Hillingdon Borough Council as the head of its Committee Services Department (a category one post). The provision of services to the Council’s committees necessarily involves the Committee Services Department in frequent contact with and giving advice to the elected members of the Council. Mr Brough was the officer responsible for those activities.

As a consequence of the Regulations, Mr Brough can no longer act as Parliamentary Chairman of his party in Harrow East and is prevented from speaking at public meetings on issues such as housing and the health service. Mr Brough did not apply for exemption from the scope of the Regulations.

D. Judicial review proceedings challenging the validity of the Regulations

The applicants and NALGO (the predecessor of UNISON, the trade union of which the applicants are members and which represents public-sector workers) applied for and were granted leave to apply for judicial review of the Regulations. The application was dismissed on 20 December 1991. The judge, Mr Justice Hutchison, considered that he was bound by the recent decision of the House of Lords in the case of R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind and Others regarding the status of Article 10 of the Convention in domestic law. In connection with the test of “Wednesbury” unreasonableness, the judge referred to an affidavit submitted by Mr Simcock, a senior civil servant at the Department of the Environment, in which Mr Simcock explained how the Widdicombe Committee (see paragraph 8 above) had been set up in 1985 to inquire into local authority practices and procedures with particular reference to the respective roles of elected members and officers. Mr Simcock also described the consultation process between the publication of the Widdicombe Report and the making of the Regulations, in which NALGO was involved, and how the Regulations were in some respects less restrictive than the Widdicombe Committee’s proposals. Referring to senior officers, the Widdicombe Committee had said: “... It is part of their job to advise councillors, and to adjudicate on matters of propriety, and in so doing they must command the respect and trust of all political parties. There might well be some senior officers who are politically active but who are nevertheless totally able to detach themselves from such activity in carrying out their duties as neutral officers. Nevertheless we believe there will always be a very significant risk that they are viewed with suspicion by councillors of other parties, and that as a consequence the performance of their duties towards the council as a whole will be impaired.” The judge continued: “... I preface my summary by pointing out that some of [the applicants’ complaints] reflect the applicants’ root and branch opposition to the whole concept of restricting the political activities of local government employees. It is said that:

(a) There was no pressing social need for the Regulations – local government employees have in the past provided impartial advice and there is public confidence in their ability to do so.

(b) The definition of [persons holding politically restricted posts] is unduly wide – a much more restricted category would have served the government’s purpose.

(c) The restrictions are expressed in broad, subjective and uncertain terms – a vice particularly objectionable where, as here, they seek to restrict fundamental human rights. Thus, in the Schedule references to apparent intention (paragraphs 6 and 7) and to publication in circumstances likely to create an impression (paragraphs 9 and 10) are objectionable, as is paragraph 4 of the Regulations themselves.

(d) The consequence of the vice mentioned in the previous paragraph is that employees are likely to be treated inconsistently by different employers, by reason of there being room for undue latitude in interpreting the restrictions.

(e) The Regulations go too far in prohibiting conduct undertaken with apparent intention, etc., or likely to create the impression of support, etc. They should, at most, have proscribed actual political activities.

(f) The width of the language used means that many non-party political activities, including trade unions and charitable activities, are prohibited.

(g) The terms are imposed on existing employees, who entered into their contracts of employment on a different basis.

(h) The restrictions may have an adverse effect on recruitment and lead to resignations by skilled staff.

Some of these points will have to be considered individually when I come to deal with further arguments advanced by the applicants under quite different heads, but in the context of Wednesbury unreasonableness I propose only to say that they do not in my judgment come near to establishing a case of perversity. I have already briefly referred to the genesis of the Act and the Regulations in the Widdicombe Report, and to the consultative processes that followed it. Paragraph 51 of the Report contained the recommendation that: ‘... terms and conditions of [persons holding politically restricted posts] [should include] a prohibition on political activity, including ... (iii) speaking or writing in public in a personal capacity in a way that might be regarded as engaging in party political debate;’ The Government’s Command Paper in July 1988 (in which, as already mentioned, the view was expressed that the categories of [persons holding politically restricted posts] should be more restricted than the Report proposed) spelt out the essential aim that: ‘it was important that the post-holder should be seen to be politically impartial but that otherwise, local government employees should not be subject to restrictions on their political activity.’ Of the specific arguments mentioned in (a) to (h) above, those in (a), (b), (e), (g) and (h) are, it seems to me, essentially arguments against the whole concept of restricting such activities, and in the circumstances cannot found an attack on Wednesbury grounds. The arguments summarised in (c) and (d) are to the effect that the Regulations are uncertain and incapable of consistent and fair application. As a Wednesbury argument, this contention could not avail the applicants – at least unless the Regulations were void for uncertainty (this would be a distinct ground for challenge) which plainly they are not. Finally, the argument mentioned in (f) is in my view misconceived: the Regulations do not prohibit the kind of activities there mentioned. I shall have more to say on this subject when I deal with the applicants’ specific arguments on vires and legitimate expectation, to the first of which I now turn.” In conclusion, the judge found that the Regulations did not go beyond the policy and purpose of the Act, and rejected an argument that the applicants had a “legitimate expectation” that the Government would not interfere with trade union activities on the basis of an assurance from the then minister for local government matters. 24. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 26 November 1992. Lord Justice Neill found that the provisions of Article 10 of the Convention did not assist NALGO and the applicants, confirmed that it was not open to the courts below the House of Lords to depart from the traditional Wednesbury grounds in reviewing the decision of a minister who has exercised a discretion vested in him by Parliament, and found that the Regulations were not “Wednesbury unreasonable” or ultra vires. He also agreed with the first-instance judge as to legitimate expectation. The other judges, Lords Justices Russell and Rose, agreed. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. 25. The House of Lords refused leave to appeal to it on 24 March 1993.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e1
001-58222_a8_em1
DATETIME
QUASI
9 July 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e2
001-58222_a8_em2
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three-month
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e3
001-58222_a8_em3
CODE
DIRECT
22954/93
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e4
001-58222_a8_em4
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e5
001-58222_a8_em5
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Mobin Ahmed
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e6
001-58222_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Dennis Perrin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e7
001-58222_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Ray Bentley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e8
001-58222_a8_em8
PERSON
QUASI
Mr David John Brough
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e9
001-58222_a8_em9
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e10
001-58222_a8_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
21 September 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e11
001-58222_a8_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e12
001-58222_a8_em12
PERSON
NO_MASK
Sir John Freeland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e9
001-58222_a8_em13
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e13
001-58222_a8_em14
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Bernhardt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e14
001-58222_a8_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
27 August 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e15
001-58222_a8_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Ryssdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e16
001-58222_a8_em17
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Macdonald
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e17
001-58222_a8_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Russo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e18
001-58222_a8_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Spielmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e19
001-58222_a8_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. De Meyer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e20
001-58222_a8_em21
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Gotchev
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e21
001-58222_a8_em22
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P. Kūris
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e22
001-58222_a8_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P. van Dijk
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e23
001-58222_a8_em24
PERSON
QUASI
Mr L.-E. Pettiti
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e24
001-58222_a8_em25
PERSON
QUASI
Mr R. Pekkanen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e16
001-58222_a8_em26
PERSON
QUASI
001-58222_a8_em17
Mr Macdonald
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e17
001-58222_a8_em27
PERSON
QUASI
001-58222_a8_em18
Mr Russo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e13
001-58222_a8_em28
PERSON
QUASI
001-58222_a8_em14
Mr Bernhardt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e25
001-58222_a8_em29
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e26
001-58222_a8_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
22 December 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e27
001-58222_a8_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
15 January 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e28
001-58222_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
22 January 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e29
001-58222_a8_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
27 April 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e30
001-58222_a8_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
21 April
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e31
001-58222_a8_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
18 May 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e32
001-58222_a8_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
29 May 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e33
001-58222_a8_em37
DATETIME
QUASI
2 September 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e34
001-58222_a8_em38
ORG
NO_MASK
Liberty
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e35
001-58222_a8_em39
LOC
NO_MASK
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e36
001-58222_a8_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
12 January 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58222_a8_e37
001-58222_a8_em41
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e38
001-58222_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
22 April 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e39
001-58222_a8_em43
PERSON
QUASI
Mr C. Whomersley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e40
001-58222_a8_em44
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e41
001-58222_a8_em45
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Morris QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e42
001-58222_a8_em46
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Eadie
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e43
001-58222_a8_em47
PERSON
QUASI
Mr I. MacLeod
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e44
001-58222_a8_em48
PERSON
QUASI
Mr P. Rowsell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e45
001-58222_a8_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
Department of the Environment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e46
001-58222_a8_em50
PERSON
QUASI
Mr D. Steele
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e45
001-58222_a8_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
Department of the Environment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e47
001-58222_a8_em52
PERSON
QUASI
Mr N. Bratza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e48
001-58222_a8_em53
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Goudie QC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e49
001-58222_a8_em54
PERSON
QUASI
Mr A. Lynch
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e50
001-58222_a8_em55
PERSON
QUASI
Mr B. Banks
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e51
001-58222_a8_em56
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Bratza
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e52
001-58222_a8_em57
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Goudie
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e53
001-58222_a8_em58
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Morris
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e5
001-58222_a8_em59
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Mobin Ahmed
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e6
001-58222_a8_em60
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Dennis Perrin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e7
001-58222_a8_em61
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Ray Bentley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e54
001-58222_a8_em62
PERSON
QUASI
Mr David
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e9
001-58222_a8_em63
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e55
001-58222_a8_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
1941
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e56
001-58222_a8_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
1948
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e57
001-58222_a8_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
1947
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e58
001-58222_a8_em67
DATETIME
QUASI
1932
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e35
001-58222_a8_em68
LOC
QUASI
London
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e59
001-58222_a8_em69
LOC
QUASI
Yelverton
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e60
001-58222_a8_em70
LOC
QUASI
Edgware
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e61
001-58222_a8_em71
LOC
QUASI
Exeter
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e62
001-58222_a8_em72
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e63
001-58222_a8_em73
LOC
NO_MASK
Scotland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e64
001-58222_a8_em74
LOC
NO_MASK
Wales
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e65
001-58222_a8_em75
DATETIME
NO_MASK
5 February 1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e66
001-58222_a8_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
Widdicombe Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e67
001-58222_a8_em77
DATETIME
NO_MASK
9 May 1986
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e66
001-58222_a8_em78
ORG
NO_MASK
Widdicombe Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e68
001-58222_a8_em79
DEM
QUASI
Chairman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e68
001-58222_a8_em80
DEM
QUASI
Chairman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e66
001-58222_a8_em81
ORG
NO_MASK
Widdicombe Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e11
001-58222_a8_em82
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e11
001-58222_a8_em83
LOC
NO_MASK
United Kingdom
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e66
001-58222_a8_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
Widdicombe Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e69
001-58222_a8_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Local Authorities’ Conditions of Service Advisory Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e66
001-58222_a8_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
Widdicombe Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e70
001-58222_a8_em87
DATETIME
NO_MASK
16 November 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e71
001-58222_a8_em88
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Commons
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e72
001-58222_a8_em89
DATETIME
NO_MASK
29 November 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e73
001-58222_a8_em90
ORG
NO_MASK
Local Government Officers
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e74
001-58222_a8_em91
DATETIME
NO_MASK
4 April 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e75
001-58222_a8_em92
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1 May 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e5
001-58222_a8_em93
PERSON
DIRECT
001-58222_a8_em5
Mr Ahmed
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e5
001-58222_a8_em94
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Ahmed
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e76
001-58222_a8_em95
ORG
QUASI
London Borough of Hackney
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e77
001-58222_a8_em96
DEM
QUASI
category three officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e78
001-58222_a8_em97
ORG
NO_MASK
Housing Benefits Review Board
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e79
001-58222_a8_em98
ORG
NO_MASK
Housing Development Sub-Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e80
001-58222_a8_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
Environmental Sub-Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e5
001-58222_a8_em100
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Ahmed
POLITICS
check
001-58222_a8_e81
001-58222_a8_em101
DEM
QUASI
Labour
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e82
001-58222_a8_em102
ORG
QUASI
London Borough of Enfield
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e62
001-58222_a8_em103
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e83
001-58222_a8_em104
DATETIME
QUASI
7 March 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e5
001-58222_a8_em105
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Ahmed
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e84
001-58222_a8_em106
DATETIME
NO_MASK
twelve months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e85
001-58222_a8_em107
DATETIME
QUASI
30 March 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e5
001-58222_a8_em108
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Ahmed
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e6
001-58222_a8_em109
PERSON
QUASI
001-58222_a8_em6
Mr Perrin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e6
001-58222_a8_em110
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Perrin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e86
001-58222_a8_em111
DEM
QUASI
Principal Valuer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58222_a8_e87
001-58222_a8_em112
ORG
QUASI
Devon County Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e77
001-58222_a8_em113
DEM
QUASI
category three officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e88
001-58222_a8_em114
DATETIME
QUASI
19 February 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e6
001-58222_a8_em115
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Perrin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e89
001-58222_a8_em116
DATETIME
QUASI
20 March 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58222_a8_e6
001-58222_a8_em117
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Perrin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-58222_a8_e90
001-58222_a8_em118
DEM
QUASI
Vice-Chair
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e91
001-58222_a8_em119
DEM
QUASI
Property Officer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e92
001-58222_a8_em120
ORG
QUASI
Exeter Constituency Labour Party
POLITICS
insert
001-58222_a8_e81
001-58222_a8_em121
DEM
QUASI
Labour
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e93
001-58222_a8_em122
ORG
QUASI
Exeter City Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e94
001-58222_a8_em123
DATETIME
QUASI
May 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e95
001-58222_a8_em124
DATETIME
QUASI
May 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e7
001-58222_a8_em125
PERSON
QUASI
001-58222_a8_em7
Mr Bentley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e7
001-58222_a8_em126
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Bentley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e96
001-58222_a8_em127
DEM
QUASI
planning manager
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e97
001-58222_a8_em128
ORG
QUASI
Plymouth City Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e98
001-58222_a8_em129
DEM
QUASI
Chairman of Torridge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e99
001-58222_a8_em130
ORG
QUASI
West Devon Constituency Labour Party
POLITICS
insert
001-58222_a8_e81
001-58222_a8_em131
DEM
QUASI
Labour
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e100
001-58222_a8_em132
ORG
QUASI
West Devon Borough Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e68
001-58222_a8_em133
DEM
QUASI
Chairman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e101
001-58222_a8_em134
ORG
QUASI
Plymouth Health Emergency
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e7
001-58222_a8_em135
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Bentley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e7
001-58222_a8_em136
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Bentley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e102
001-58222_a8_em137
DEM
QUASI
head
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e102
001-58222_a8_em138
DEM
QUASI
head
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e84
001-58222_a8_em139
DATETIME
NO_MASK
twelve months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e103
001-58222_a8_em140
DATETIME
QUASI
31 August 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e104
001-58222_a8_em141
ORG
NO_MASK
Council’s Policy and Resources
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e7
001-58222_a8_em142
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Bentley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e7
001-58222_a8_em143
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Bentley
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e105
001-58222_a8_em144
DATETIME
QUASI
19 November 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e8
001-58222_a8_em145
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Brough
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e8
001-58222_a8_em146
PERSON
QUASI
001-58222_a8_em8
Mr Brough
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e106
001-58222_a8_em147
ORG
QUASI
Hillingdon Borough Council
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e102
001-58222_a8_em148
DEM
QUASI
head
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e107
001-58222_a8_em149
ORG
QUASI
Committee Services Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e107
001-58222_a8_em150
ORG
QUASI
Committee Services Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e8
001-58222_a8_em151
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Brough
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e8
001-58222_a8_em152
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Brough
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e68
001-58222_a8_em153
DEM
QUASI
Chairman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e108
001-58222_a8_em154
LOC
QUASI
Harrow East
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e8
001-58222_a8_em155
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Brough
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e109
001-58222_a8_em156
ORG
QUASI
NALGO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e110
001-58222_a8_em157
ORG
QUASI
UNISON
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e111
001-58222_a8_em158
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e112
001-58222_a8_em159
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Justice Hutchison
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e113
001-58222_a8_em160
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e114
001-58222_a8_em161
MISC
NO_MASK
R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind and Others
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e115
001-58222_a8_em162
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Simcock
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e45
001-58222_a8_em163
ORG
NO_MASK
Department of the Environment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e115
001-58222_a8_em164
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Simcock
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e66
001-58222_a8_em165
ORG
NO_MASK
Widdicombe Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e116
001-58222_a8_em166
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1985
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e115
001-58222_a8_em167
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Simcock
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e117
001-58222_a8_em168
ORG
NO_MASK
Widdicombe Report
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e109
001-58222_a8_em169
ORG
QUASI
NALGO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e66
001-58222_a8_em170
ORG
NO_MASK
Widdicombe Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e66
001-58222_a8_em171
ORG
NO_MASK
Widdicombe Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e117
001-58222_a8_em172
ORG
NO_MASK
Widdicombe Report
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e118
001-58222_a8_em173
ORG
NO_MASK
Command Paper
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e119
001-58222_a8_em174
DATETIME
QUASI
July 1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e120
001-58222_a8_em175
DATETIME
QUASI
26 November 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e121
001-58222_a8_em176
PERSON
QUASI
Lord Justice Neill
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e109
001-58222_a8_em177
ORG
QUASI
NALGO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e113
001-58222_a8_em178
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-58222_a8_e122
001-58222_a8_em179
PERSON
QUASI
Lords Justices Russell and Rose
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e113
001-58222_a8_em180
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e113
001-58222_a8_em181
ORG
NO_MASK
House of Lords
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-58222_a8_e123
001-58222_a8_em182
DATETIME
QUASI
24 March 1993
Mobin Ahmed
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Mobin Ahmed