Commons Sitting of 10 May 1999

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

DEATH OF A MEMBER
2.33 pm
Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of the right hon. Derek Fatchett, the Member for Leeds, Central. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our deepest sympathy to Derek's family and his friends.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  DEFENCE

    Defence Procurement Contracts
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What plans he has to use the experience and data acquired from the current air campaign over Yugoslavia to assist in the drawing up of criteria for future defence procurement contracts. [82578]
    The Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Decisions about our future equipment programme, and the best way to procure that equipment, are based on a wide range of information, including data drawn from operational experience. We are taking steps to acquire accurate data from the current air campaign to provide a sound basis for future analysis. The results of that analysis will be used as a guide in the determination of future capability requirements.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the lessons of the current conflict is the need for our forces to be at the cutting edge of technology, collaborating as much as possible with our European partners, and that that applies to air-to-air missiles as well as to air-to-ground missiles? In that context, may I especially commend to him the programme currently being developed by British Aerospace for the Meteor missile? I believe—as do many of my constituents who are employed by British Aerospace—that that programme will give Eurofighter great capacity; it will give us air strength, and enable us to carry forward our cutting-edge technology in defence procurement.
    Mr. Spellar: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign on behalf of his constituents and the most important work that they undertake for our defence needs. He will be aware that proposals were received in May 1998 on the BVRAAM—beyond visual range-air-to-air missile—capability. We are holding discussions with our potential partners in Europe—Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden—on those proposals, and we are holding separate discussions with the United States. A contract to proceed to full development and production is expected to be awarded towards the end of 1999. All factors—operational, financial and industrial—will be taken into account in reaching our decision.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the experiences that has been learned from the campaign in

    3
    Yugoslavia is that air power alone is not an effective way to induce an adversary to relinquish territory? Moreover, it kills many non-combatants.
    Mr. Spellar: First, we go to inordinate lengths to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties. The experience of the war clearly demonstrates that. Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not talk down the effect of our air campaign, which has significantly degraded the military capability of the Yugoslav armed forces and their armed police and paramilitary assistants. We have made a considerable impact on their operational capability, communications and command and control. That is starting to have a significant impact.

    Troop Deployment (Macedonia)
    Helen Jones: How many troops are currently deployed in Macedonia. [82579]
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: How many troops are currently deployed in Macedonia. [82585]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): As at 10 May, about 5,700 British Army personnel and about 100 RAF personnel are deployed in Macedonia.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in taking this opportunity to congratulate our forces in Macedonia on the humanitarian work that they have undertaken to ease the plight of the Kosovo Albanians? Does he agree that their plight demonstrates that, despite the tragic events of last weekend, NATO must maintain its resolve to ensure that those people can go home and rebuild their lives?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I certainly join her in congratulating British forces in Macedonia. In fact, Lieutenant-General Mike Jackson, the commander of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps—the NATO force—was in London this morning and shared the rostrum with me at our Ministry of Defence daily briefing. I made clear to him—as did all my ministerial colleagues—how proud we are of the British forces and of all the troops under General Jackson's control for the outstanding work that they have done to deal with that flood of humanity tipped over the borders of Kosovo into Macedonia. With civility, decency and huge individual skill and sacrifice, the troops have looked after those human beings. We must continue to listen to what the refugees are saying about the horrors that they have experienced; we must not be put off by anything in our determination to get them home.
    Mrs. Gilroy: In addition to echoing my right hon. Friend's tribute to our troops in Macedonia, may I invite him to pay tribute to the men and women on board the Devonport-based HMS Somerset in the Adriatic? Macedonia and other front-line countries face a significant challenge in the way in which they accommodate troops, as well as the huge influx of refugees. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to help them meet that challenge?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of the Royal Navy and especially of those ships that sail from Plymouth, and I too pay tribute to HMS Somerset. I visited the Adriatic last week with the shadow Defence Secretary, the defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and the shadow Foreign Secretary. We all visited Gioia del Colle, where RAF pilots are in action on a regular basis, and HMS Invincible, where we were joined by members of the crew of HMS Newcastle. All of them are doing a job that is in the interests of international law and order, and we expressed the country's pride in their actions.
    My hon. Friend is right to point to the huge sacrifices being made by the people of Macedonia and Albania, both in absorbing the large number of refugees who have been forced on them by Milosevic's genocidal violence, and in playing host to the large number of NATO troops who are there to implement the eventual settlement. We are doing much to ensure that aid, support and back-up are given to the Governments of those small countries, which have had to bear so much of the burden arising from the brutality of President Milosevic in Belgrade.
    Mr. John Maples: Would not the position of our troops in Macedonia be greatly enhanced when they eventually enter Kosovo were they do so pursuant to the terms of a United Nations Security Council resolution? Last week, the Government secured the agreement of Russia to seeking such a resolution, but has not that now been made almost impossible by the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that incident showed a quite unacceptable degree of incompetence, given that the address of the Chinese embassy is apparently in the Belgrade telephone directory? Does he agree that that act not only sets back the achievement of NATO's war aims, but means that we have succeeded in seriously damaging relations with both Russia and China within one month?
    Mr. Robertson: There was no targeting of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade—it was a huge and terrible mistake, and expressions of regret have been made by NATO and other Governments. However, given that some 18,000 sorties—6,000 of them strike sorties—have taken place, the few mistakes that have been made, every one of which is bitterly regretted, have to be seen in proportion.
    I do not believe that we have made it impossible to get a Security Council resolution when a settlement has been reached, and that would clearly be our objective when it came to putting our forces or any other forces that were required into Kosovo. In the short term, that task has been made more difficult, but no interest of either China or Russia is served by allowing Milosevic to get away with the sort of ethnic cleansing that he has been carrying out until now. When I stood yesterday at the newly erected memorial to the 27 million citizens of the then Soviet Union who died in the second world war, the Russian ambassador made it clear that the diplomatic track had to go on and that those efforts should be intensified. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will express the same message when he makes his statement on Kosovo later this afternoon.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Secretary of State for Defence recall telling the Defence Committee some 10 hours before the bombing began:
    "Our military objective—our clear, simple, military objective—will be to reduce the Serbs' capability to repress the Albanian population and thus to avert a humanitarian disaster",
    and further stating:
    "I would like to stress that whatever action is taken, that action is taken on behalf of all NATO allies with the aim—the clear and, I believe, justified aim—of averting a humanitarian disaster."?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman report to the House his assessment of the effectiveness of that strategy in delivering that aim?
    Mr. Robertson: That was of course our aim, and it is still our aim to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe that would occur if all those refugees who have left Kosovo were not to go home, and to avert the humanitarian catastrophe that would occur in many other parts of the world if Milosevic were to get away with his ethnic cleansing.
    The campaign could have been over in a few days if Milosevic had recognised that our determination was absolute and that international opinion was against him, but his obstinacy and his genocidal instincts in respect of the Albanian members of the Kosovo population have led him and his country down a suicidal path. Our objective remains to disrupt the violence that may still be going on, in which we are being progressively more successful every day, and to weaken the military machine that is causing that violence. With every day and night that passes, we degrade and weaken that military machine. Ultimately, Milosevic will have to recognise that he cannot defeat NATO and that international decency will prevail.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Given the fact that the American Senate has voted overwhelmingly against the commitment of ground troops, is it not clear that the air war of itself cannot achieve the objectives set? Will the Secretary of State tell the House how the indiscriminate bombing of Yugoslavia, including the bombing of a hospital and a market with cluster bombs, and the bombing of refugee camps and the Chinese embassy, contributes in any way whatever to the restoration to the refugees of their rightful homes in Kosovo?
    Mr. Robertson: I hope that sometime, when my right hon. Friend is listing the handful of bombs that have gone astray in Kosovo, he will mention the thousands of bombs that have landed accurately on military targets in accordance with the objectives that we set out. The air campaign is successful, but there are clearly limitations. If we believe in international law and in high standards of conduct, and if we are targeting military installations and trying specifically to avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian buildings, we will be at a disadvantage compared with someone who is brutally, ruthlessly and mercilessly directly attacking civilians and civilian property. Yet we have had enormous success: the machine is substantially weaker than it was. Day after day and night after night, we are targeting the military installations inside Kosovo that are causing the violence. Ultimately, Milosevic must recognise that and comply.
    Mr. Tom King: Since the only personnel on the ground who might give any immediate help against
    6
    persecution by the Serbian paramilitaries are in the Kosovo Liberation Army, what is the Government's and NATO's present view on supporting the KLA's activities within Kosovo?
    Mr. Robertson: Quite simply, we are prohibited from supporting the KLA either with arms or other resources. A specific United Nations Security Council resolution limits the military assistance that can be given in that theatre, and we are bound by its terms. Therefore, that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
    Ms Diane Abbott: I join in congratulating the NATO forces that are engaged in humanitarian work in Macedonia. However, I ask the Secretary of State: are there no maps available to NATO forces showing them the sites of foreign embassies in Belgrade? If plan A—which is to bomb Milosevic into submission—fails, is the Secretary of State prepared to share with the House what is plan B?
    Mr. Robertson: First, I thank my hon. Friend for the congratulations that she has offered to British troops engaged in Macedonia. They have shown their usual professional skill and dedication in carrying out their humanitarian work, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's commendation will comfort them enormously.
    Facetious comments about targeting, however, are not very appropriate in the present tragic circumstances. A tragic mistake was made, and NATO is attempting to discover how that happened and what can be learned from it. Some 6,000 strike sorties have taken place, a small number of which have tragically led to a loss of civilian life on the Serb side. Against that, I ask my hon. Friend to examine carefully the testimony of thousands upon thousands of Kosovar refugees who say universally, credibly and believably that atrocities are continuing inside Kosovo.
    Plan A, to which we have subscribed from the beginning, involves air attacks that will disrupt the violence in Kosovo and weaken the killing machine that is perpetrating that violence. We believe the air campaign is proving successful and that the resolve in Belgrade is weakening by the day. We are confident that our plan will succeed.
    Mr. Martin Bell: The Secretary of State speaks of the need to return the refugees to their homes. Can he explain to the House how exactly that will be done without the use of ground troops? Is he aware of the dismay felt in the country that the greatest military alliance on earth seems in certain respects to be like the gang that cannot shoot straight?
    Mr. Robertson: I do not think that there will ever be an armed conflict involving so many people against such a ruthless opponent which will not involve mistakes. NATO, which certainly is the greatest military alliance in the world, is made up of 19 democratic countries. That is, on the one hand, its greatest strength, and on the other—at the moment—one of its key weaknesses. Another of its key weaknesses is also its towering strength: it acts according to international law. We take care. Mistakes will be made, but however tragic, they are small in comparison to the systematic genocidal violence being perpetrated by Milosevic against the civil population of Kosovo.

    7
    We chose air strikes as the best means in the circumstances of disrupting the violence and weakening the killing machine. We still believe that they are the best means, but following the summit in Washington, NATO is re-examining all the options in the light of the past six weeks' military activity.

    Land Command
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What proportion of the Army's Land Command is currently committed to operations. [82580]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): We estimate that 56 per cent. of Land Command personnel are currently committed to operations.
    Dr.Lewis: Given the magnitude of that commitment and the possibility of future commitments for the Army in Kosovo, Will the Minister reconsider plans for decimating the Territorial Army at such a time? Before he falls back on chanting the ususal mantra about the cuts made in the early 1990s by the Previous Government, may I point out that there is all the difference in the wolrd between reductions at the end of a cold war and cuts Proposed, incredibly, at the Possible start of a hot War?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman would contribute more to the discussion if he resisted the temptation to make party political points and considered the task that the British armed forces have to carry out and how they will ensure that they do so, which was the subject of the strategic defence review. The review aimed to put our forces in a position in which they could be deployed, with the necessary impact, in situations such as that in Kosovo.
    The hon. Gentleman probably knows that Territorial Army commitment to such deployment would be relatively minor, and where the TA is required, it must be organised so that it meets the particular needs in question. It is a matter not only of having bodies to reinforce the regular forces, but of applying the right bodies with the right skills in the right way. That is the policy that the Government are implementing in the strategic defence review.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Has my hon. Friend any plans to use the Royal Marines?
    Mr. Henderson: Our marines are an important part of our armed forces and they will be deployed as necessary with our Royal Navy and our other forces in circumstances that demand their commitment and expertise.
    Mr. Robert Key: Overstretch in front-line forces remains unacceptable, but what proportion of the operational strength of the British Army, and our NATO allies, in Albania is now devoted to planning the development of the Albanian infrastructure, such as the port, roads, airfields and health care? Who will prepare long-term plans for that infrastructure? What will happen to Albania's economy when NATO withdraws, or is our current effort part of a long-term, open-ended commitment by the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Henderson: At the moment, a small number of our forces are involved in those activities. Those key
    8
    People are Planners, who are making a major contribution to NATO's effort. The hon Gentleman raises important issues, which will have to be dealt with in the long term, but it is somewhat premature to ask what detailed plans there will be for rebuilding the economy and social structure of the Balkans, including Albania. The hon. Gentleman will know that such condiserations are one the key principles incorporated into last week's G8 statement, and more will need to be done as time passes.

    Strategic Defence Review
    Sir Sydnety Chapman: What plans he has to review his strategic defence review following NATO military action in Yugoslavia. [82581]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I have no plans to review the strategic defence review in the light of current events in the Balkans. The MOD's new strategic planning process ensures that there is now a policy-led re-evaluation of defence plans every year.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: In the light of the recent strategic defence review, is the Secretary of State satisfied that our armed services can currently sustain two medium-level operations for more than a six-month period, or more than two medium-level operations for up to six months? In the light of recent events—not least in south-east Europe—does he agree that that is the minimum requirement around which our defence policy should be framed for the future?
    Mr. Robertson: The key point is that the strategic defence review was designed to look forward at the kind of threats that we would face in the future, rather than endlessly looking at the enemies we had in the past. It was designed so that our forces will be able eventually to deal flexibly with the sort of problems that we face in Kosovo today. I say eventually, because it is less than a year since the strategic defence review was published and its implementation was started, but I am confident that it will give us that flexibility. Kosovo has shown us how valuable and important that exercise was. However, the planning assumptions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are planning tools intended to guide the development of our long-term force structure: they were not intended to provide a template for specific operational commitments. As we explained at the time of the review, we may choose to do more or less, depending on the circumstances.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I offer my thanks to the Secretary of State for inviting me to accompany him on his recent visit to the Balkans? As someone who supported both the process and the policy conclusions of the defence review, may I urge him to be realistic about what is necessary for United Kingdom defence in the light of the current and inevitable future commitments in the Balkans? Does he accept that the 3 per cent. annual efficiency saving, which is incumbent on the Ministry of Defence, is not just "challenging"—as it was publicly described by the Chief of the Defence Staff—but is in truth unachievable without an enduring impact on defence capability? Does he further understand

    9
    that the Government should feel no embarrassment in reviewing the defence budget, but should take the opportunity to demonstrate sound common sense?
    Mr. Robertson: The defence review demonstrated sound common sense. The 3 per cent. efficiency target is challenging, but it is not unachievable, because it is already being met. In the event of a Liberal Democrat Government coming to power—that is a long-term vision for the House—and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman held my job, he too would strive for savings and efficiency. He too would seek better value for money and would wish to ensure that in defence we did not throw money at problems, but tried to get the best that we could out of our budget.
    Mr. John Maples: No doubt when the Balkan conflict is over, the Secretary of State will wish to examine how we and our allies respond to future conflicts. Yesterday, Mr. Prodi suggested that the European Union should have an army, and the Government apparently immediately rejected that call. However, is not Mr. Prodi's call wholly consistent with Government policy, especially paragraph 3 of the St. Malo agreement with France, which calls for
    "the EU to have recourse to military capacity either within NATO or multi-national means outside the NATO framework."?
    What else can
    "multi-national means outside the NATO framework"
    mean if it does not mean what Mr. Prodi said?
    Mr. Robertson: First, let me emphasise what the hon. Gentleman skated over—the fact that the British Government have dissociated themselves from the concept that Mr. Prodi put forward. In terms of the development of reasonable military capability inside Europe to deal with situations in which NATO may not wish to become corporately involved, or in the event of the United States of America and Canada not wishing to be involved in European-based operations, I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the Petersberg tasks. They were adopted by NATO for use through the Western European Union and foresaw precisely that form of European-based operation taking place.
    The initiative that we took, which was underlined in the St. Malo agreement, related to focusing the minds of all the European countries on the fact that, first, the common foreign and security policy of the European Union will require better decision making; and secondly, if we in Europe want to do anything about the decisions that we take, we must have much better and much more effective defence capabilities. We have directed attention to those two key components; I should have thought that everyone in the House would have supported them.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What discussions he has had about a new generation of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement. [82582]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I have not had any discussions about a successor system to Trident. We concluded in the strategic defence review that no decision on any possible successor system would be needed for several years.
    Mr. Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend recall that two previous Labour Governments—those of Lords Attlee and Callaghan—embarked on the development of nuclear weapons without consulting even the Cabinet, never mind the British public? Can he give the House an assurance that the Government will not begin the development of any new generation of nuclear weapons without first taking the public into their confidence?
    Mr. Robertson: I thought that my hon. Friend had become so venerable and so distinguished that he had given up the conspiracy view of history, including any such view regarding the present generation of Labour Ministers. I do not have to make some defensive statement on the subject. I simply say to my hon. Friend, read the strategic defence review and see there probably the most transparent account of our nuclear forces and reserves, and all aspects of our nuclear policy, that has ever been disclosed in this country. That is the model for open government on those critical issues. So open have I been, so much detail have I given, that most people have not even noticed that that account has been published yet.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the proliferation of nuclear arms between India and Pakistan, and the proliferation generally of ballistic missiles? Does he think that the UK should consider—perhaps with its international partners—the need for an eventual ballistic missile defence system for the UK in future?
    Mr. Robertson: We are very concerned about nuclear proliferation; in fact, that was one of the key subjects of the NATO summit in Washington two weeks ago. We take very seriously the manufacture and deployment of ballistic missiles by countries that previously did not have them, and such proliferation is part and parcel of the thinking that is going on and should go on at the moment.
    We are not in favour of developing ballistic missile defence systems. We are in favour of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which was one of the pioneering forerunners of arms control legislation.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: With nuclear non-proliferation negotiations taking place in Geneva this coming fortnight, may I ask whether, despite the difficult international climate, especially in regard to our relations with Russia and China at present, Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to give fresh impetus to the nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament process, both at Geneva and in other forums?
    Mr. Robertson: Most countries that have examined what we proposed in the strategic defence review—very serious reductions in our stockpile and in the number of nuclear weapons that we have deployed—will have seen that we are not just engaged in arms control discussions for the sake of appearances. We believe in arms control. We have shown by example what other people can do

    11
    about it. Therefore, we shall bring to these arms control negotiations a considerably greater sense of urgency than previous Administrations did to previous negotiations.

    Weapons Systems Equipment
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What assessment he has made of the availability of weapons systems equipment to British forces in the Balkans. [82583]
    The Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): UK forces deployed on NATO operations in the Balkans have the right equipment for the job.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am delighted to hear that, but I have to bear in mind that, further to the question put to the Secretary of State for Defence by the right hon. and learned Member for NorthEast Fife (Mr. Campbell), the Government must also consider the 3 per cent. efficiency savings. Can the Secretary of State confirm—he may not be able to give us a cast-iron guarantee, although I would like that—that nothing will stand in the way of supplying new, up-to-date and more efficient equipment, designed to suit conditions in the Balkans, so that equipment will not compromise the efficiency of the British armed forces serving there?
    Mr. Spellar: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to hear that our forces have the equipment that they need. After all, the previous Conservative Government bought most of it. The basis of the SDR was to re-equip and realign our forces to meet the new post-cold war environment. We have an on-going major programme of re-equipping our forces, with many examples of new equipment, some of which have been mentioned today.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Would the Minister care to comment unequivocally on claims in the press, on the internet and through e-mail channels that the Royal Air Force is using cluster bombs and runway-denial weapons involving sub-munitions that are identical in character to landmines, and that British personnel are involved in training the Kosovo Liberation Army to deploy landmines, something that would clearly be in contravention of the Ottawa agreement? Is my hon. Friend able to give an unequivocal response to such accusations?
    Mr. Spellar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity firmly to deny all those rumours, which, as he said, are coming through a variety of media. I confirm that we are using RBL755 cluster bombs, which are not prohibited under the Ottawa convention or under the Landmines Act 1998.
    Mr.John Wilkinson: Is it not the case that weapon systems are only as effective as the training and the commitment of the crews who have to operate them? Should we not pay tribute to our aircrews in the Balkan theatre, but realise that thet always need the most modern navigation and attack systems and the most modern weapons and defensive aids? When the
    12
    Minister is procuring sophisticated aircraft, will he ensure that there is that full complementarity that makes systems fully effective?
    Mr. Spellar: As I said earlier, we are continuing to make further investment in the equipment that is available to our forces. I obviously join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the skill and dedication of our forces. In some instances, there has been an argument about whether they have been able to hit certain targets. They make an enormous effort in that regard. On a number of occasions, they have not bombed a target because conditions did not give them the assurance that they would be able to hit it. That is a tribute to their professionalism and the success that they have had, and to the very limited collateral damage that has been inflicted.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What in heaven's name is the justification for using cluster bombs against targets such as the centre of Nis?
    Mr. Spellar: We are not, as my hon. Friend says, using cluster bombs against the centre of Nis. That was a mistake. We are using cluster bombs as effective munitions against the military concentrations of those troops who are committing the most appalling atrocities in Kosovo. We are degrading their ability to do that and taking out a considerable part of the Yugoslav forces and the armed police. I would have thought that to be a legitimate objective, and one that the great majority of hon. Members would endorse.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: The Minister is aware that, both outside the Chamber and inside it, a number of reservations have been raised about the effectiveness of the air campaign to fulfil NATO's political objectives. Most recently, General Naumann, the retiring chairman of the NATO military committee, raised some deep reservations about the campaign. Can the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom chiefs of staff and the Chief of the Defence Staff had no such reservation when they advised the Government about the air campaign prior to 23 March?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes, General Naumann's comments were taken very much out of context. As I have said, the air campaign has had a major effect in degrading communications, the ability to move and quite a bit of the materiel of the Serbian forces. This is a policy of the Government and of the armed forces, who are pursuing it extremely effectively. Given the hon. Gentleman's previous experience, I am slightly surprised that he seems to be trying to drive a wedge between service chiefs and the Government on the matter, when we are united in pursuit of the objectives.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mr. David Chaytor: What discussions have taken place between his Department and the Foreign Office on the longterm implications for the international nuclear disarmament process of NATO's decision not to redefine the role nuclear weapons play in NATO's new strategic concept. [82586]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): My Department and the Foreign Office maintain close dialogue on all aspects of nuclear policy. At the Washington summit, NATO's strategic concept was endorsed by all 19 members of the alliance.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and welcome the small signs of progress at the Washington summit in the redefinition of nuclear weapons policy. Could not the very slow pace of the progress towards the objective of reducing nuclear weapons worldwide put at risk the negotiations on the non-proliferation treaty taking place this week, as well as the long-term future of the comprehensive test ban treaty?
    Mr. Robertson: I hope not. By reassessing our own nuclear stocks—we now have the smallest stockpile of nuclear weapons of any of the five nuclear weapons states—and through the confidence-building measures that we have introduced—the reduced state of alert of our nuclear submarines, and the fact that our missiles are detargeted—as well as through the other measures in the strategic defence review, we have given a clear idea of the direction in which we believe that the world should go. Therefore, our commitment to retaining Trident, which was the policy on which my hon. Friend and I fought the last election, should be, as the manifesto stated, accompanied by a greater degree of urgency in arms control negotiations. In that respect, we have shown by actions, not by words, that we mean business.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Secretary of State agree with the estimate by the CIA that, by 2015, almost any country will be able to deliver an intercontinental ballistic missile? Does he therefore follow the argument that, in addition to the ability to respond with nuclear force, we need to invest in a credible defence mechanism?
    Mr. Robertson: I do not think that the CIA was suggesting that every country would have its own intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015. However, the matter of ballistic missiles causes concern across the world, and that is why it is kept under constant examination. As and when the technology is available to deal with that threat, we will examine it carefully. In the meantime, we must step up the discussions on arms control, so that countries will not feel the need to acquire such weapons systems.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: Did my right hon. Friend read the communique of the strategic concept summit, which stated that the characteristic of nuclear weapons is that
    "they prevent coercion and any kind of war"?
    Surely whoever wrote that was not paying attention to the fact that there is a war going on in the Balkans, and that nuclear weapons were doing nothing to prevent it. That does not give much confidence in the seriousness with which NATO countries regard the role of nuclear weapons. Should that not be addressed in the not-too-distant future?
    Mr. Robertson: Nobody is pretending that nuclear weapons can prevent all conflict, but the deterrence value of our nuclear weapons is proven and is supported by the
    14
    vast majority of the British people. As I said before, the strategic concept and the language in it, over which there were long and sometimes painful discussions, were subscribed to by the Governments of all 19 countries.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: What contingency plans NATO has made for the stationing of British land forces in Kosovo. [82587]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): It was agreed at the NATO summit that the Secretary-General of NATO and the military planners should update their planning. In the meantime, a build-up of NATO forces is taking place in Macedonia in anticipation of deploying into Kosovo to implement a peace settlement and ensure the safety and security of refugees returning to their homes. As at 10 May, there are 5,700 British Army personnel and about 100 Royal Air Force personnel deployed in Macedonia in connection with those plans.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State has said nothing about the amount of time that troops might have to be in Kosovo. Perhaps he is quite right to do so—it could be an indefinite commitment. If we are to maintain troops in Kosovo, and also in Bosnia, we will need about 30 new regiments and battalions if we are to achieve a 24-month gap between operational tours. Is that not the case and, if we are to make a commitment in Kosovo, will the Government either commit themselves now to increasing the number of operational regiments or will he admit that the gap between operational tours will have to decrease?
    Mr. Robertson: I hear the grinding sound of a great military mind at work. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman comes to that conclusion, which I have never heard from anybody else, about 30 new regiments being required for the British Army. The discussions that took place at Rambouillet about that suggested that we should be looking at a troop commitment by this country in Kosovo for three years after a peace agreement was arrived at. We have an early burden to carry, because we are the framework nation of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, and Lieutenant-General Jackson and his people are doing their job with enormous skill.
    The view of my military advisers is that we can sustain what we are doing and that we, along with other elements of the international community, can bring peace back to Kosovo within a reasonable period, but, clearly, that will depend on the outcome of the conflict and the nature of any settlement that is reached.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: We can see different brigades and regiments going in during the build-up of British troops, but there has been no mention of the Yugoslav navy, which is a threat to our Royal Navy, or to the possibility of Marines being deployed. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what has happened to the Yugoslav navy in this conflict?
    Mr. Robertson: There is a Yugoslav navy—my hon. Friend is absolutely right—but it has not ventured very far out of any of its harbours. If and when it becomes a threat to NATO forces in the area, action will be taken.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: In the light of the Secretary of State's plans for Kosovo, deployments to

    15
    other parts of the Balkans and to Northern Ireland and other possible threats, I again urge him to reconsider the plans to run down the Territorial Army in the next few months and the horrifying decision to break up the centre of excellence—5 Airborne brigade—on 1 September. Before he gives me the same glib answer as the Minister for the Armed Forces gave my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), may I remind him that, when the Conservative Government found themselves faced with a crisis in 1982, Margaret Thatcher put her strategic defence review straight on to hold and cancelled the decision to sell HMS Invincible?
    Mr. Robertson: The difference is that those previous defence reviews were reducing the size of our forces. Our strategic defence review increases the regular strength of the British Army by 3,300 troops and creates a sixth deployable brigade, which is precisely what the British Army was asking to be able to deploy in such circumstances.
    I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has a fixation with the modernisation of the TA, that we set about modernising tshe TA so that it could be used more and could be more relevant, and so that it would, in circumstances such as those that we might face just now, be more involved. That is what the modernisation was all about; it is being successfully put into practice at present and we believe that it is also improving morale inside the TA. The changes suggested in the strategic defence review are designed specifically to allow this country's forces to be able to deal flexibly with situations such as those thrown up by Kosovo.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that he has not changed his mind about the fact that President Milosevic has no veto over any NATO action? Does he agree that it might be necessary for ground troops to go into Kosovo in an atmosphere that is not completely permissive?
    Mr. Robertson: President Milosevic will have no veto over what we do in relation to getting the people evicted from Kosovo back safely to their homes. The NATO authorities are, on the instruction of the Secretary-General, re-visiting all of the assumptions that were made earlier this year. There is no question about a forced invasion of Kosovo, but it would be prudent and reasonable for us to look at all the options again in the light of the damage that has been done by Milosevic to Kosovo and the considerable damage done by NATO to the Serb military machine.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church Schools
    Mr. Peter L. Pike:If he will make a statement on the role of the commissiners in respect of Church schools. [82613]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Responsibility for the management of Church of England schools lies with the individual governing bodies of the schools, supported by diocesan boards of education and local education authorities. Nationally, they are represented by the Church of England Board of Education, which, working with the National Society for the Promotion of Religious Education, provides a range of support services for dioceses and schools.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that there are some 5,000 Church schools in England, and about one in eight of our children attend Church of England schools. Lancashire has more Church schools than any other county in England. Can my hon. Friend tell me how value added tax on repairs is dealt with differently in Church schools and county schools?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the number of Church schools in Lancashire. The current estimate of the Church's contribution to capital works in Church school buildings is £20 million a year. A significant proportion of the work undertaken is subject to VAT. Equivalent work in county schools is not subject to VAT, and I hope that the Government are listening to the campaign of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) to get rid of VAT on Church repairs.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: I shall have to call the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no VAT is charged on the building of new Church schools or new churches? Does he agree that the Government should apply for the new derogation that is about to be agreed by Finance Ministers, which would allow for VAT not to be charged on Church repairs for up to three years?
    Mr. Bell: Yes. I support the hon. Lady's campaign in relation to VAT on Church repairs. I have pointed out to the House that, since 1972 at least, successive Governments have ignored any pleas on that issue. The hon. Lady raised the issue of the Council of Ministers in Europe and a new derogation. I am sure that the Church Commissioners would like to support that, and see what the Government have to say.

    Ethical Investment
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: What plans the commissioners have to dispose of their shares in GEC. [82614]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): None. The Church's ethical investment working group, which makes recommendations on ethical investment policy, has made no such recommendation. The hon. Gentleman has no doubt seen inaccurate press reports, which the newspapers have since corrected.
    Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful for that answer, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Church has a policy of not investing in companies that manufacture arms. I hope that he can assure the House today that, although the Church fully supports the concept of the just war, it also supports the excellent British people who work for a first-class British company such as British Aerospace, which is in the front line of the defence not only of the freedoms of the people of this country, but of the war against aggressors overseas. Does he agree that there is every reason why the Church should invest in such an honourable company? Moreover, had it invested in British Aerospace earlier, it would have made much more money to fund the stipends, the bishops and the clergy.
    Mr. Bell: I will not be tempted to go down the route of the stipends, the bishops and the clergy at this moment. I have visited British Aerospace factories and can testify to the sterling work done there and the contribution that British Aerospace makes to the nation. The Church accepts the right of nations to defend themselves and engage in peacekeeping activities. It therefore accepts the legitimacy of an indigenous defence industry supplying equipment under Government licence. The national Church investing bodies, however, have never held shares in British Aerospace.

    Millennium Celebrations
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What plans the Church Commissioners have to celebrate the millennium. [82615]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Among other things, hundreds of local congregations are making plans for activities and events under the three themes: "a new start with God", "a new start at home" and "a new start for the world's poor". Every parish in England will be encouraged to distribute millennium candles to their parishioners. There is a schools arts project called JC2000, which was originated by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). The Open Churches Trust is encouraging every church bell in the land to be rung on new year's day, followed by a time of prayer. That will be a joyful message and a joyful occasion.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I welcome all those initiatives. Will the Second Church Estates Commissioner say a little more about his involvement in trying to secure funding for a Christian section of the spirit zone of the millennium dome? Does he agree that Christianity should, at the very least, form the core and substantial part of that spirit zone?
    Mr. Bell: I am pleased to announce to the House—where all good announcements should be made—that, under my guidance as Second Church Estates Commissioner and that of Sir Tim Sainsbury and others, a number of Christian sources have provided the majority of the funding for the zone. An official announcement will be made by the New Millennium Experience Company in the near future. Those who visit the zone will be impressed by its thoughtful but inspiring vision of Christianity, and it will dovetail with all the other millennium celebrations that the Church is planning.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: It is right and proper that the millennium should be a Christian celebration, and that, as my hon. Friend said, the Church Commissioners are organising events. What co-operation has there been with people in the many communities who, as well as the Churches, are planning to celebrate the millennium? The Church Commissioners and the parishioners should liaise with local authorities and other community groups who are organising millennium celebrations. We should bring the Christian and local dimensions together in those celebrations.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that we are not an exclusive society. We have a strong Christian ethic—this is a Christian society—and we fully recognise the major faiths of other communities, as they recognise ours. There has been great co-operation between all faiths, certainly on the spirit zone of the millennium dome. That co-operation is being repeated up and down the land.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my delight that more than 12,000 schools in the United Kingdom have signed up to the millennium arts festival for schools, JC2000. Does he also share my slight concern that, so far, the parishes and other elements of the Church of England either have had little opportunity to assist us in this work or, if they have been given the opportunity, have not availed themselves of it?
    Mr. Bell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his campaign for JC2000. It has at least 10,000 schools behind it, and that number is increasing by the day. Local education authorities up and down the land are being encouraged to participate. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that there is a massive organisation for the millennium celebrations, and assets and funds will have to be shared out carefully.

    Ethical Investment
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If he will make a statement on the ethical investment policies of the Church Commissioners. [82616]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissioners try to invest in companies that will successfully develop their business in the interests of their beneficiaries, but that also have responsible employment practices and are conscientious about issues of corporate governance, environmental performance and human rights, and are sensitive to the communities in which they operate.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: That is a clear statement of their ethics. Does it not follow that the Church will have to take some hard decisions on large companies, especially firms such as GEC? The Church will have to measure its desire for profit against the actions of companies that manufacture arms.
    Mr. Bell: The Church Commissioners have £29 million invested in GEC, which has our strong support. However, when it hived off a division making equipment for offensive rather than defensive action, we made a clear statement that we would not take up the new shares in
    20
    British Aerospace. The Church understands the varied views held by its membership on this difficult situation. As my hon. Friend says, it is clear that wholehearted support for every defence stock would be unacceptable to many Church members.

    Kosovo
    3.30 pm
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on recent developments in Kosovo. Before I do so, however, the House would expect me to say a few words about the tragic death of Derek Fatchett. Along with all the workers at the Foreign Office, I am shocked at his sudden loss. Our thoughts today are first for his wife and family. I spoke this morning to Anita, who told me how proud she had been of what Derek had done. She and her sons had every right to be proud of him. Over the past two years, he had proved himself to be an effective and creative Minister—from the early days, when he helped to broker a ceasefire to provide relief during the famine in Sudan, until last month, when he paid a brave visit to East Timor. His early death cruelly deprives the whole House of a Member who had so much more to give. It robs many of us of a friend whom we will always remember as cheerful, whatever the difficulties.
    Last Thursday, I attended a meeting of the G8 Foreign Ministers in Bonn. That meeting reached agreement with Russia on the principles on which any settlement of the Kosovo conflict must be based. They parallel the objectives that NATO requires to be met as a condition of ending the military campaign: the withdrawal of Serb military, police and paramilitary forces from Kosovo, an international interim administration for Kosovo, a political process on the basis of the Rambouillet peace accord, and the free return of all refugees under the protection of an international security presence, capable of achieving our common objectives.
    From the start of the conflict we have maintained regular dialogue with Russia, and have made sure that the door is kept open to Russia. The agreement on common ground between us exposes as a lie the repeated promises of Milosevic to his people that one day Russia would come to their rescue. Work can now proceed this week between officials of our countries to turn those principles into the draft text of a Security Council resolution.
    On Friday night, the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was destroyed during a NATO attack on sites in the city. It appears that the missiles hit the building on which they had been targeted, but the building had been wrongly identified in the targeting plans as the federal directorate of supply and procurement for the Yugoslav army. The review continues into how the error could have occurred, and the procedures that gave rise to it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to Zhu Rongji, the Chinese Premier, expressing our deep regret at the error, and assuring him that there was no deliberate intent on the part of the allies to attack the Chinese embassy.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Did he enclose a cheque?
    Mr. Cook: That was a very tasteless remark about what is a very grave and serious situation.
    Yesterday I spoke to our ambassador in Beijing, who confirmed that the embassy had been blockaded by demonstrators who had hurled stones through the front windows of the embassy building. I am pleased to report that no member of the embassy staff has been injured, and
    22
    we are not aware of any other British citizen in China having been attacked. We have amended our travel advice in respect of China to recommend against all non-essential visits to China at the present time.
    My noble Friend Lady Symons saw the chargé d'affaires of the Chinese embassy this afternoon, and recorded our concern about the safety of our officials and other nationals in China. We welcome the appeal by the Vice-President of China, Hu Jintao, for the demonstrators to behave peacefully, and the apparent increase in the efforts of the Chinese police to protect the embassy.
    On Saturday, after the news broke, I spoke to the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, who confirmed that Russia was firmly committed to the principles that we had agreed in the G8, and that there would be no let-up in the search for a settlement. We continue vigorously to pursue any opportunity for progress on the diplomatic track. After this statement I shall meet Carl Bildt, who has been appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as his special envoy. Tomorrow Viktor Chernomyrdin, the special representative of President Yeltsin, is meeting Mr. Talbot, the United States Deputy Secretary of State.
    Our best hope of success on the diplomatic track is to keep up the military pressure. If Milosevic felt any reduction in our air campaign, or sensed any weakening of our resolve, there would be no prospect of his agreeing to meet our demands.
    On the ground in Kosovo over recent days, we have destroyed tanks, heavy artillery, military convoys and command posts. In total, we have eliminated within Kosovo the equivalent of the weapons and equipment of an entire brigade, but we cannot ignore the fact that the Serb forces in Kosovo are controlled and co-ordinated from Belgrade. Striking at their command headquarters in Belgrade is vital to breaking their military capability in Kosovo. On Friday night, we destroyed in central Belgrade the Hotel Yugoslavia, which had been taken over as the war room for Arkan's paramilitaries, who have killed, burned and raped their way across Kosovo. By any test, that war room was a legitimate military target and could not be ignored if we were serious about reversing the ethnic cleansing that was planned from there.
    We want a settlement and we would welcome a diplomatic solution, but we will not accept a settlement at any price. It must meet our objectives—in particular, it must provide for the Kosovo refugees to go home under our protection. Anything less would condemn the refugees to a life in exile and refugee camps, and would reward President Milosevic for the butchery and brutality with which he has evicted them.
    Fresh evidence continues to pour in of that brutality. In one single day last week, we received reports from refugees of three further atrocities. At Djakovica, 19 people, mainly women and children, were found by the Serb forces hiding in a basement. They were all shot in that basement and the house burned over them. At Kotlina, Serb police threw 20 villagers down a well and then threw hand grenades down after them. At Suva Reka, around 100 residents were herded into the shopping centre and shot. None of those people was killed as a result of tragic error. Every single one of them was murdered at close range, deliberately and callously.
    I understand and share the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House at the loss of civilian life when there is a tragic error in our bombing campaign, but I

    23
    cannot understand those who focus on the tens who have been casualties of NATO's military campaign, to the exclusion of the tens of thousands who have been butchered by Milosevic in Kosovo.
    I invite hon. Members to visit the exhibition space at the Foreign Office, where they can see on display drawings by children from the refugee camps. I defy any Member not to be moved to discover that the children have often drawn the guns bigger than the people and the tanks bigger than the many burning houses. It is not just the dead who are the victims of ethnic cleansing; the living also are traumatised by what they have had to see. The least we can do is enable them to return and to rebuild their homes in safety. We will continue and intensify both military and diplomatic campaigns until we succeed in doing so.
    Mr. Michael Howard: First, may I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's comments about the tragic and most untimely death of the Minister of State, the news of which will indeed have shocked the whole House. Whatever our political differences, he will be greatly missed, and our thoughts and sympathy are with his family.
    As the Foreign Secretary is aware, the Opposition have throughout supported the decision to take action in response to the atrocities of the Milosevic regime. Likewise, we supported and continue to support the original objectives of the action taken by NATO. Nevertheless, he will appreciate that it is our role to scrutinise, to question and, where necessary, to criticise the actions of the Government. Rarely is that role more vital than during times of armed conflict.
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was not only a tragic mistake, but an act of gross incompetence? Can he confirm that almost any street map of Belgrade clearly shows the location of the Chinese embassy? Will he tell us whether NATO has a list of targets to be avoided? If there is such a list, why did the Chinese embassy not feature prominently on it?
    Will the Foreign Secretary also tell the House what measures are being taken to protect the lives of British citizens and British property in China? What consideration is being given to the wider diplomatic implications of the latest events for our relationship with China, and with Russia?
    Are there not a number of other aspects of the planning and implementation of the military action that give rise to grave disquiet?
    How can the Foreign Secretary reconcile the original objectives of the action stated at the start of the campaign with last week's fudged G8 Foreign Ministers' communiqué, which—in relation to the peacekeeping force, for example—contained no reference at all to NATO?
    How can the Foreign Secretary justify the fact that it was not until five weeks into the air strikes that the NATO Heads of Government asked for advice on whether an oil embargo could legally be imposed? Will he confirm reports this morning that NATO is now backing away from threatening the use of force in its proposed
    24
    visit-and-search regime, and intends instead to rely on a naming and shaming of countries that do not co-operate with a voluntary embargo?
    What response does the Foreign Secretary have to General Naumann, the outgoing chairman of NATO's Military Committee, who has lamented the inability of NATO to use surprise or sufficient force, as a result of which, he said, the campaign has "undoubtedly" been prolonged? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon that
    "any failures cannot be laid at the feet of the military",
    but have their root in the political parameters that were set?
    Will the Foreign Secretary also clarify the position on the number of refugees that Britain has agreed to accept. Other countries have specified the total number to be admitted; will the British Government provide a similar figure?
    Do not all those unanswered questions give the impression that action is being made up as we go along and has not properly been thought through?
    The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there has never been any doubt in our minds that it was right for NATO to take action to deal with Milosevic's atrocities. The Opposition supported that decision, and we support it today. The international community must do all that it can to bring the unspeakable suffering in the region to an end. However, does he accept that the strength of our conviction on that matter makes us all the more concerned at the apparent lack of clarity in NATO's objectives and in the means employed to achieve them? Does he agree that clarity and consistency are now required more urgently than ever?
    Is it not most regrettably the case that, seven weeks into the military action, we appear to be no nearer to achieving the primary objective set out by the Prime Minister, that of averting a humanitarian disaster? Indeed, is it not unhappily the case that the humanitarian disaster—the responsibility for which, of course, rests firmly and unambiguously with Mr. Milosevic—gets worse with each day that passes?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for associating himself with my comments about Derek Fatchett. It may be of some help to his family to know that respect for Derek was felt on both sides of the House.
    I have already said to the House that what happened was a tragic error, and that there must be a review of what happened and of whether procedures have to be changed to ensure that it does not happen again. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to share criticisms that have been expressed about what he described as "the political parameters" of the bombing campaign. The political parameters of the bombing campaign are there precisely to seek to minimise the risk of civilian casualties and of other non-military properties being destroyed.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on the one hand, insist that we should be more careful to avoid civilian casualties, and, on the other hand, suggest that we should lift the political parameters that very clearly try to minimise those casualties by focusing on military targets.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for clarity. The NATO objectives could not be clearer. We require some clarity in the Opposition's support for them.

    25
    We have repeatedly stressed those objectives: first, a ceasefire; secondly, the withdrawal of Serb forces; thirdly, the return of the refugees; fourthly, a credible international presence to protect those refugees, which will have a NATO core; and finally, a political process based on Rambouillet. Those objectives have been stated clearly, repeatedly and in the same terms for seven weeks. I wish that the Opposition would not keep shifting the basis on which they express their support for them.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to General Naumann. He is behind the times. General Naumann followed the statement that the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted by saying, when he met President Clinton, that he could not think of any change that he would make to NATO's military campaign.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: Holding on to his pension.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman says that General Naumann was hanging on to his brief. He resigned the next week because it was his retirement date. He was not speaking to hold on to office. The hon. Gentleman should know who he is speaking about, because I understand that he claims to be a defence spokesman. General Naumann retired at the agreed date with his consent and that of the allies. He could speak freely and he said that he would make no change to the military campaign, which was achieving its objectives.
    We are fighting an immense and great evil in Kosovo. It would have been helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had endorsed any of the statements that I made about the nature of that evil. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] With the greatest respect, there was not a single reference in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said to the immense burning, looting, killing and raping that we have witnessed throughout Kosovo. We are determined to show the necessary resolve to ensure that those policies are reversed and the refugees return. It is disappointing that it has taken seven weeks, but I can think of nothing more feeble than if our resolve and determination ceased after seven weeks. We are determined to continue until we reverse the ethnic cleansing. I ask all those in the House who share our concern to support us in seeing that through.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is it not clear that the intelligence community, particularly in the United States, will have to be far more accurate than it was over the bombing of the Chinese embassy? I hope that the allied Governments, including Britain, will make that clear. On the wider issue, while every effort should be made to find a diplomatic solution, and Russia is to be congratulated on its efforts, was there not a simple choice at the beginning of the allied military campaign? Either we accepted the ethnic cleansing, the crimes and the rapes that were taking place in Kosovo, or we took action. If we had not taken action and merely accepted the situation, it would have been a shame and humiliation for this country. As a Labour Back Bencher, I make no apology for supporting what has been done.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clarity. There is a review of what went wrong and of the
    26
    procedures. If improvements can be made to the procedures, they must be implemented to minimise any possibility of such a tragic error recurring.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I begin by associating myself with the remarks made by the Secretary of State about his colleague Derek Fatchett. In opposition and in government, he had a sure touch on foreign affairs, and his family's loss is our loss.
    Does not the incident involving the Chinese embassy reveal certain blunt but unpalatable truths? First, there was a simple but inexcusable error. Secondly, as a result, we have handed to Mr. Milosevic's regime an unparalleled propaganda opportunity. Thirdly, we have offered a public and, to some, persuasive justification for the Chinese Government's opposition to NATO's actions in the Balkans. Finally, regrettable though the incident was and sincerely though we must apologise for it, does not the catalogue of atrocity that the Secretary of State has just read to us confirm that we have no option but to see the matter through? If no settlement can be achieved, if necessary we will have to do so by deploying ground troops in a hostile environment.
    Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the need to pursue the matter. All of the mounting evidence from those who have spoken to any of the refugees who have left Kosovo over the past seven weeks confirms the importance of continuing with our campaign. We cannot allow such evil to triumph. We will at every possible opportunity seek to minimise civilian casualties and to make sure that we minimise the opportunity of ordnance going to the wrong target.
    However, I must be blunt with the House; one cannot wage a military campaign of this intensity without mistakes. There have been 6,000 bombing sorties over the past seven weeks, and very few have resulted in the wrong target being destroyed. However, it would be dishonest of me to stand at the Dispatch Box today and promise the House that there will never again be any mistakes. If we were to make that a condition of the military campaign, we could not wage a military campaign of the intensity and duration that is necessary to secure Milosevic's agreement to our objectives.
    Ann Clwyd: Is not it the case—as my right hon. Friend has clearly said—that the way to end the war is for Milosevic to meet the conditions that my right hon. Friend has spelled out this afternoon? Was not the way in which the Opposition behaved this afternoon a clear case of their trying to undermine the Government's resolve, in exactly the same way that right-wing opposition in the United States Congress and Senate has tried to clip the wings of the President at a time when he personally—like the British Government—would prefer to commit ground troops? Would it not be the worst of all worlds if the refugees were to return to Kosovo without the situation being properly and finally resolved?
    Mr. Cook: I associate myself with most of my hon. Friend's comments. May I clarify a point in relation to ground troops? We have always been committed to providing ground troops to underline a ceasefire and to make sure that any agreement would stick. That remains our position. The whole of the alliance in Washington—not just one member—agreed to task Javier Solana, the

    27
    alliance's Secretary-General, with reviewing the circumstances in which it might be appropriate for our forces to enter and to escort the refugees back in security.
    Sir Alastair Goodlad: We on the Back Benches would like to associate ourselves with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said about Derek Fatchett, who was a greatly respected and admired colleague in the House.
    Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, at the moment, the Prime Minister's expression of regret for the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade has not been reported in the Chinese media and that, in China, it is universally assumed to have been a deliberate act? The talk there is of an acknowledgement of a breach of international law, and of compensation and apologies to the families, who will be receiving the bodies tomorrow. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that his mind is not entirely closed to a further gesture—perhaps by way of an apology from NATO—to improve what is a dangerously fissile situation in China?
    Mr. Cook: My mind is certainly not closed to anything that would help us to reassure the Government of China that what happened was not a matter of any deliberate intent. I am aware, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that that is a view widely held within China, although we are not convinced that it is a view necessarily believed by the Government of China. Nevertheless, we will seek to do anything we can to get that point across and to rebuild bridges with China. NATO has already recorded its deep regret, and we would be happy to consider what further statement might be of assistance. However, let us be clear: this was a tragic error, and there was no deliberate intent on our part. It should not deflect us from our intent and objective, which is to secure the return of the refugees to Kosovo.
    Mr. George Galloway: I will visit the exhibition that the Foreign Secretary has staged of drawings by Kosovar children. I would have liked hon. Members to be able to visit a similar exhibition by Iraqi schoolchildren, except that that exhibition was banned by none other than the Foreign Secretary some months ago.
    Can the Foreign Secretary not see that when in a hole, in politics as in life, people should stop digging? Whatever one's view about this war and about whether it should have been started in the first place, is it not clear that we are all now in a very deep pit? All of us—the Yugoslays, the Kosovans, the Chinese and NATO—are in a deep hole. Is it not obvious that a settlement is within sight, based on the G8 agreement? Would it not be sensible to have a pause in the bombing—even if it is only in case any further disasters occur that make the G8 negotiations invalid or unobtainable? Would it not be wise to have a pause in the bombing and a return to the negotiating table at the United Nations, based on the G8 proposals? I feel sure that those who are following this matter closely realise that that is the basis for a settlement. If we continue bombing, we may bomb that possibility to smithereens.
    Mr. Cook: I point out to my hon. Friend that none of us entered this conflict lightly; nor did we enter it without
    28
    exploring every other possible way of resolving the crisis in Kosovo. We put two months into the Rambouillet-Paris peace talks. The talks were followed up by a special visit to Belgrade by Richard Holbrooke. The reason that we are currently engaged in a military campaign is that every other possible avenue was closed off by Milosevic.
    We are trying to turn the G8 proposals into a resolution at the Security Council; that work will continue this week. However, no one would be happier than President Milosevic if we were now to suspend the military campaign. That would enable him to refuel and resupply the troops in Kosovo, and to strengthen, once again, those units in the field that have been weakened by our bombing campaign. That would not assist a solution, but would ensure that it would be longer before we could secure the only solution that will bring justice to Kosovo—the return of the refugees under international protection. Until we can secure that objective, it would be foolish of the House to suggest that we should cease the bombing campaign.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: With our war aims set out, I well understand that it is extremely difficult to talk much about how long the refugees will be in the camps. However, is it not realistic to believe that a substantial number of refugees will be there for a very long time? Will the Foreign Secretary reassure us that the Government are working hard to ensure that the refugees' shelter against the cold of the winter and the heat of the summer is what they actually need? Can he assure the House that the camps will not become recruiting grounds for the Kosovo Liberation Army, as the refugee camps in the Congo became recruiting grounds for the Interahamwe?
    Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to ensure that those camps do not become armed camps, as the camps in the Congo were. However, it would be foolish for anyone to deny that there will be many young refugees who will be interested in working for the KLA. We have to face the fact—as must Milosevic—that his behaviour and his brutality are the best recruiting sergeant for the KLA. That army has grown in strength during the period in which he has claimed to be wiping it out.
    As for the future of the camps, it must be said that they are not prepared for winter. We must not necessarily prepare them for winter, but we must ensure that we provide a tolerable standard of life for the people in the camps until we can take them back to Kosovo. That is why, especially in Albania, we are encouraging refugees to go down to the coast where it will be easier to provide for them than it is in the mountainous border area. I stress to the House that, when we secure our objective of entering Kosovo and taking the refugees back, a large task of reconstruction will remain before they will have homes in which they can live through the winter. Whether inside or outside Kosovo, a major task of reconstruction lies in our hands.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Whatever the reasons—or lack of them—for the bombing of the Chinese embassy, is it not now clear that the Russian embassy to the Yugoslays to seek a solution will be made doubly difficult? Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to put urgent and immediate support behind the widening of that embassy and the involvement of the

    29
    United Nations in the war, so that action can be taken that will make it clear that we seek an equitable and honest solution?
    Mr. Cook: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that point. The last information I had before leaving is that the Germans expect that the visit to Beijing will go ahead; that in itself is encouraging. I hope that that visit and the many other contacts that we are making with Beijing will help to ensure that we can achieve a common way forward in the diplomatic process.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is keeping in mind the war powers resolution of both Houses of the United States Congress, which applies equally to ground, sea and air forces, and which requires that if, after 60 days, Congress has not declared war, authorised the use of armed forces or given a time extension, the President must withdraw the American forces from the war zone? As it appears highly unlikely that the current Congress will pass resolutions in that sense, what will happen when 60 days of NATO bombing is completed on 26 May?
    Mr. Cook: It is a brave diplomat who tries to tread in the relations between Congress and the White House, but we have had repeated exchanges with President Clinton over the past few days, including the period since that resolution was passed, and we detect no slackening of resolve on the part of our major ally. I believe that many of the Congressmen and Senators on the hill, including those whom I met only two weeks ago when I attended the Washington summit, understand full well what is at stake and would not want America or NATO to abandon the Kosovo refugees.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I put it to the Foreign Secretary that, now that the going has got rough and tough in the former Yugoslavia, our democracy has to be clear on one fundamental point, which is that there is no comparison to be drawn, either militarily or ethically, between the accidental bombing by NATO, tragic though it was, and the callous, systematic and repugnant policies of the Serb regime, which involve organised rape and mass killings. Ministers do not need this advice, nevertheless, I urge them to keep their nerve and to listen to decent British public opinion, not to those on both sides of the House whose words—however well meaning or sincere—can only give comfort to the planners of mass murder in Belgrade.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an important point, in that we have to weigh carefully what we say, for in an open society, our words are openly and freely reported and are then prone to being abused in Belgrade, where there is not the same open and free access to the media.
    As for my hon. Friend's other point, I understand that public opinion will be concerned about what happened to the Chinese embassy, just as the Government and the other Governments of the alliance are concerned. However, public opinion would be even more outraged if the public were to sense that we had betrayed the Kosovo refugees and abandoned them to a life in the camps. The public would be even more outraged if they felt that there was to be no justice in respect of the atrocities and crimes committed in Kosovo. I am quite confident that public
    30
    opinion would want us to continue until we can secure the return of the refugees and access by the International War Crimes Tribunal to Kosovo.
    Mr. Tom King: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept my clear view that, although he is entitled to seek the widest possible support in the House for the Government's current position and the action that they have taken, there are genuine public concerns about certain developments in respect of those events and that, in our parliamentary democracy, the Opposition have a duty to raise such concerns? I appreciate the pressure he is under, but does he recognise that it does not help when he tries to disparage the Opposition when they discharge part of their duty?
    Mr. Cook: I entirely agree that there are concerns and that those concerns need to be expressed. However, if the right hon. Gentleman reflects, he will accept that the NATO objectives are clear and that it does not help us to show resolve and determination behind those objectives if it is suggested that there is any lack of clarity in them. They do have clarity. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred to the lack of clarity of NATO objectives, I believe that that is a false charge which does not enable us to show the resolve and determination that are necessary for success.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: I have just been elected to the new Scottish Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that one of the clearest messages that citizens in every part of Scotland sent in that election was their rejection of a party that had criticised the military action taken against the ethnic cleansers of Kosovo? Furthermore, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Kosovan refugees who arrived in my East Lothian constituency last night will be made very welcome? Surely the most important duty of the House and of the Government must be to create the circumstances that will allow those people to return to their own country safely.
    Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to the Scottish Parliament. I think that there are many reasons why the people of Scotland rejected independence as an option last week.
    I am confident that the local authorities that we invite to assist us in accommodating the Kosovar Albanians will rise to that challenge. My hon. Friend has a long record and experience of providing help to the people of Bosnia, and I am sure that both he and his constituents will rise to the challenge of helping the people of Kosovo.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: At the end of April, I and other members of the International Development Committee had the good fortune to be briefed by two British NATO generals in Albania and Macedonia. I think I speak for Committee members from both sides of the House when I say that we were very impressed by both the generals and the good humanitarian work carried out by NATO troops in those countries. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a growing body of opinion to the effect that, although there is no problem with the armed forces' prosecution of the war, there is a problem with the political direction and a lack of understanding on the part of our political leaders? Is he

    31
    aware that informed opinion in this country lacks confidence in our political leaders—indeed, there is a growing conviction that the political leadership both in Washington and in this country has no idea what it is doing?
    Mr. Cook: I cannot say that I regard that contribution as immensely helpful in demonstrating to Belgrade our unity, resolve and determination. It is very easy to make that kind of open criticism. If the hon. Gentleman is genuine and serious about trying to find a way forward, and if he has thought of some approach that has escaped the 19 members of the alliance and its military command, we would be grateful if he would express his views rather than simply criticising what is being done.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware—he must be—that no one in the House is an apologist for President Milosevic or the crimes that he has committed? Is he aware that those who know war know that it is bloody and indiscriminate? When NATO decided to make war, it knew that many innocent people would be killed—and that has happened. Is the Foreign Secretary also aware that the impression is being created that the Government have lost contact with reality? The American Senate—which, unlike the House of Commons, has some power over matters of peace and war—will not support ground troops. The air war will not succeed. Therefore, the best hope for the refugees is to take up the Russian proposal at the Security Council where there is an opportunity to find a solution. Bombing and insult, in equal proportions, are getting us nowhere. The invasion will not be allowed and the danger is that the Government are misleading the refugees into believing that this policy will enable them to return home.
    Mr. Cook: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I said in my statement that we are now working with Russia in order to take forward a Security Council resolution. I hope that we may be able to produce a draft of that resolution before the end of the week. It is certainly our objective to work on it as fast as we can.
    The obstacle to a resolution in the past seven weeks has not been us, but Russia and the threat of a Russian veto. I welcome the fact that we have achieved common ground upon which we can take forward the resolution. However, the House must be clear: we have secured a political agreement with Russia, and that is very different from a settlement with Belgrade. There is no evidence that if we back off and relax the military pressure, Belgrade will suddenly decide to do what it resisted doing throughout the Rambouillet peace talks. I do not, therefore, believe that we are selling the Kosovo refugees an honest prospectus if we say that there is a way forward that does not involve a military campaign.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: It is unfitting and unsuitable for the Foreign Secretary to question the Opposition's resolve and motives because they choose to question and draw attention to the monstrous and unforgivable incompetence of the bombing of the Chinese embassy. One would have hoped that if NATO truly thought that the Chinese embassy was the federal
    32
    procurement executive, it might have taken action some time beforehand to remove the executive and troubled to find out exactly where the Chinese embassy was.
    Much more work needs to be done by NATO and others involved to prepare for the reconstruction of Kosovo. What steps were taken at the G8 meeting to prepare for efforts to rebuild the houses that will be needed to shelter the hundreds of thousands of poor refugees, who will return to scenes of total devastation? I urge the Foreign Secretary, instead of posturing at the Dispatch Box, to give us straightforward answers without irrelevant criticism.
    Mr. Cook: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I could not have made clearer to the House my concern about what has happened to the Chinese embassy and the difficulties that the events have caused us all.
    On the reconstruction of Kosovo, we committed ourselves at the G8 meeting to an interim administration under an international authority, which we anticipate will be achieved through United Nations endorsement and a resolution. That interim administration will need to call on all the resources of the international community, including the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union and the UN, as well as NATO. Reconstruction will be a major task.
    At my meeting, after this statement, with Carl Bildt, the special representative of the UN Secretary-General, I hope to explore how he and his fellow envoy, Eduard Kukan, can work together to prepare plans for what happens after we go into Kosovo. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the preparations for that need to start now. We face the task of rebuilding a whole country.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I welcome the agreement with Russia, not as an alternative to NATO's military action, but as a complement to it. In planning for the eventual international peacekeeping force under the direction of the UN, are special steps being taken to widen participation as much as possible, particularly to involve the Governments of Muslim countries? Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that the United Arab Emirates has made substantial aid available to Albania to provide a field hospital, an airport and several camps, and would be willing to participate in an international peacekeeping force?
    Mr. Cook: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. It is true that several Muslim countries are anxious to help, and some are already doing so. We have always made it plain that although any international military force must have a NATO core to be credible, it need not be exclusively NATO. I would welcome Russia's involvement in such a force, and I hope that Muslim nations will also be involved, to ensure that we demonstrate a full international presence.
    Mr. Alan Clark: It was not the Royal Air Force that smashed up the Chinese embassy, and as the Foreign Secretary is speaking in the British House of Commons, why does not he say so? That action was taken by the USAF, whose general and habitual standard of inept targeting and gung-ho opportunism must have been responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of civilians. In the last war, the alliance had the habit of issuing

    33
    communiqués at the end of almost every day, saying what had happened and which units within the alliance had been tasked to take the action. Why cannot we introduce that procedure, and then at least some degree of responsibility for these repetitious outrages would be easier to attribute?
    Mr. Cook: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that UK aircraft were not involved in the attack on the Chinese embassy. He is the first Member to ask that specific question, and I am happy to give that specific answer. However, I stress that we are operating as an alliance. It would not help us to continue to prosecute the war together as an alliance if we were to get involved in individual recrimination, and I have no intention of doing so.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that had Labour Front Benchers during the Falklands or Gulf wars made the sort of criticisms that we have heard from Conservative Front Benchers today, there would have been howls of outrage from the then Conservative Government? Does he also agree that when the wrong target has been bombed, as happened with the Chinese embassy, the whole House is concerned, but that to try to pretend that such mistakes will not be made in a military conflict is naive in the extreme and undermines the original intention of the action?
    Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. If there is to be a military campaign of the intensity necessary to make its mark on President Milosevic, it will unavoidably, on occasions, contain errors. That is why it is so important that we rightly express our concern about such errors, seek to learn lessons from them and try to prevent them from recurring. However, that should not divert us from our central resolve to see the campaign through.
    Mr. Graham Brady: The Foreign Secretary has told the House that a review will take place to consider the procedures that allowed the bombing of the Chinese embassy to take place. I invite him to give the House more details of that review, especially how long it will take and when any new procedures will be implemented. With the bombing proceeding every day, it is a matter of urgency to learn what lessons we can and to put new procedures in place.
    Mr. Cook: I am sure that if changes are to be made, they will be introduced as a matter of urgency for
    34
    precisely the reason the hon. Gentleman gives. It would not be appropriate for me to give a specific time scale to the review, but it will proceed as urgently as possible.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I join my right hon. Friend in expressing my condolences on the death of our dear friend, Derek Fatchett, whom we will all miss?
    The simple truth is that the wise old men in Peking who run China will know that what happened was an accident. They are not stupid and, in the pragmatic way for which they are internationally renowned, they will not overreact, as have many people in the House of Commons today. Will not those wise old men wish to keep on course the rapprochement with the west that has been their policy for the past 15 or 20 years? They will want to put the whole murky business behind them.
    Mr. Cook: It is perhaps worth recalling that we have achieved major improvements in our relations with China in the past year. The visit of Zhu Rongji to London was a great success. We are sure that China will not wish to throw away those gains, but will want to build on them. Nevertheless, nobody should understate the magnitude of what happened on Friday or the importance of working hard to ensure that we can put it behind us.
    Mr. Howard: May I remind the Foreign Secretary that in the course of my earlier questions, I several times condemned the atrocities of the Milosevic regime and ended my questions by saying that the responsibility for the humanitarian disaster in Kosovo rested firmly and unambiguously on Milosevic. Will the Foreign Secretary now withdraw the remarks in which he falsely alleged that I had failed to condemn those atrocities?
    Mr. Cook: If I have misrepresented the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I withdraw those remarks.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Apologise!
    Mr. Cook: Well, if I have misrepresented the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I withdraw those remarks and I apologise, because that would be right in those circumstances. However, I invite him, the next time he discusses this matter in the House, to reflect on the balance of what he says. If he examines the balance of what he said on this occasion, he will find that for every criticism of Belgrade, there were five criticisms of NATO and the alliance for what has happened. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) who made the point earlier that during the Gulf war, the Government received great support from the Opposition. I hope that we can look forward to similar support from the Opposition on future occasions.

    Points of Order
    4.19 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Doubtless the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill raises matters of importance, but those can hardly be as important or as urgent as the matters we have been discussing. Therefore, I ask whether you would be prepared to hear an application for a debate under Standing Order No. 24 so that the matters can be further discussed later tonight.
    Madam Speaker: No, I am not prepared even to contemplate a Standing Order No. 24 application at this stage. I think that the Foreign Secretary has given us a proper explanation of developments over the weekend, and we have had good questioning. I have followed very closely those Members who have put questions on this. I am very keen that all Members are called at some time or another to put a question to the Foreign Secretary. I know that the hon. Gentleman has not been called today, but he is never usually deprived on such occasions, and I will look favourably at him on another occasion.
    Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not a complaint that I was not called, because actually I have been treated extremely well in questions. The argument is rather different.
    It is all very well to hear reports of what has happened. The issue is whether the House of Commons should be able to give its opinion—and in many cases, from both sides of the House, informed views—in a way that cannot be done by the most succinct among us from the Back Benches in the form of questions. The issue for a Standing Order No. 24 application is that the House of Commons should be able to ask questions, for example, about what happens to the environment if the bombing goes on and on. Mercury, phosgene, ammonia and benzene are all spewing out. What happens, for example, to the nuclear facilities at Vinca? If one can bomb the Chinese embassy, one can bomb the nuclear core, with God knows what reaction. All those matters should be aired in debate.
    Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put his point to the Leader of the House and perhaps it could be arranged, between the two Front Benches, that a date might be set aside for such a debate, but I am not prepared to accept an application under Standing Order No. 24.
    Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In light of weekend statements by Mr. Romano Prodi supporting the creation of a single European army and a single Government for Europe—policies to which the Prime Minister claims to be opposed—I wonder whether you have had any indication from the Prime Minister that he would like to come to the House in order personally to withdraw his support from Mr. Prodi as President of the European Commission.
    Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me; it is a matter of argument.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard the reply that you gave to
    36
    my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), declining to take his Standing Order No. 24 application; I can understand that. However, I am sure that you must understand that an awful lot of people feel very concerned and wish their Parliament—this elected Parliament—to have a debate and an opportunity to take a decision on British participation with the NATO forces in Kosovo.
    What indications have you had from Ministers about how frequently they intend to make statements to this House? What pressure can you bring to bear, as a representative of the House, to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate, on a substantive motion, the issue of the present bombing of Yugoslavia?
    Madam Speaker: These are questions which are usually raised on Thursdays at business questions with the Leader of the House, who always gives a very substantive reply. I do not arrange the business of the House. I am quite prepared from time to time to consider a Standing Order No. 24 application. At the present time, I am not in a position to hear such an application.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that the International Development Committee will be issuing a report on the Kosovo refugees on Thursday, and that that might be the right occasion on which to hold a full debate on these issues?
    Madam Speaker: That is a point of information, not a point of order.
    Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I may say so, you have been very generous to those who have taken a different view from Ministers on this issue, and I have no complaint. I have never believed that the Speaker determines the business of the House.
    The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raises is that the Crown is preventing Parliament from discussing the subject. Your famous predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lenthall, has gone down in parliamentary history for insisting that the House of Commons took precedence over the Crown. In my opinion, the Crown's powers are being grossly abused by taking this country to war when its elected Parliament is not allowed to decide.
    I am not asking you to respond now, but I believe that you are being asked by the House to consider very carefully whether there is not a moment when you, as Speaker, should make it clear that those of us who represent service men and their wives and the country as a whole really must be allowed, like the American Congress, to reach a view on whether the bombing and the war should continue. For otherwise, we are spectators of our fate and not in any sense shapers of our future.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We cannot continue in this way. These are not points of order, but points of opinion, about which I am perfectly understanding, but to which, in many instances, I cannot respond.
    Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to follow on from what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said. However, there is a great deal of anxiety in the House about the fact that we have never been asked to authorise or approve what is going on. We have had an opportunity to discuss it and we have had an opportunity to ask questions, but we have not been given the opportunity to give our authority. That is a lacuna in the processes of the House and it would be enormously appreciated, Madam Speaker, if you could give urgent consideration to how the Speaker can ensure that the House has a substantive motion to address.
    Madam Speaker: For the past three or four Thursdays when I have been in the Chair, numerous Members on both sides of the House have put this matter to the Leader of the House, asking for a debate on a substantive motion, which if necessary can be amended, and a vote. The response of the Leader of the House is there for all to see. Right hon. and hon. Members must continue pressing the occupants of the two Front Benches if they are seeking a debate on this matter.

  Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.26 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before commenting on the Bill, I wish to acknowledge the reason why the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is not on the Opposition Front Bench as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is attending his father's funeral. I am sure that the entire House would wish to echo me in offering condolences to him and his family.
  It is right to begin by acknowledging the prolonged suffering that has been endured by the families of "The Disappeared". The families and friends of "The Disappeared", as they have become known, have suffered the loss of those they loved and have had to endure many years of agonising uncertainty of not knowing what happened to their loved ones and the pain of not being able to lay their bodies to rest. This is a basic human right.
  I have met representatives of a number of these families on several occasions, most recently today, and I have been deeply moved by their stories and by the remarkable courage that they have shown in the face of such adversity. More than anything else, it is their suffering which the Bill seeks to address.
  The Bill's overriding purpose is to ensure that the remains of these victims can be located and that, for the sake of these victims and their families, funerals can finally take place.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I support the Bill in principle. However, the Bill makes information and evidence inadmissible in criminal proceedings. I can well understand why that is so. The Bill also places restrictions on the forensic testing of human remains. What are those restrictions?
  Mr. Ingram: I intend to deal with that later. The Bill is not exactly the same as the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, but it is not too dissimilar, either. The same type of concepts are contained in that measure.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I think that we all support the aim that my right hon. Friend has set out. However, has he had an absolute assurance that if the Bill is allowed to go forward, funerals will take place and it will not set rather an unfortunate precedent for the future?
  Mr. Ingram: I am sure that my hon. Friend is only too well aware, being a long-standing practitioner of the art of politics, that there are no such things as absolutes. We are dealing with a sensitive and difficult subject which we must address in the best way available to us. As for setting

  39
  precedents, the Bill deals with a specific set of circumstances and it is not for me to determine what may evolve or develop on its back. We do not know what else may arise. At present there is no intention to change or develop the Bill. It is aimed at a specific objective, which I was setting out.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis rose—
  Mr. Ingram: I have hardly said very much about the Bill. It might be useful to set the scene for it, if I were allowed to do so.
  Mr. Maginnis: On that point—
  Mr. Ingram: I will give way—
  Mr. Maginnis: On that point—
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is usually insistent, and he gets his way by shouting and not listening to reasoning such as I was trying to present.
  Mr. Maginnis: Let me assure the House that, unlike some people who will be nameless at this stage, I do not let my liver override my brain.
  What the Minister has just told us is that he is reacting emotionally to the demands of the IRA, and he has not thought out the consequences of what he is proposing. That is what I gathered from his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  Mr. Ingram: I do not want to enter into a dialogue on that. We have had to introduce a considerable amount of legislation as the peace process has developed, based on the circumstances prevailing at the time. It would have been better if we did not need legislation, but if that is the way in which we achieve the objective, the Government must introduce it.
  For the sake of roundness of argument, may I refer to what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said in relation to similar legislation, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill, in 1996. It would be useful if, having intervened, he would listen. On that Bill, which dealt with armaments, he said:
  "I welcome the Bill and I shall explain why it is essential."—[Official Report, 9 December 1996;Vol.287,c.66.]
  We are dealing now with a similar piece of legislation, and I should like to hear him welcome it in the same way. He will have that opportunity when he makes his contribution to the debate.
  I was saying that we seek to ensure that victims' remains are located so that funerals can take place. This objective is particularly apt as we, the British Government, together with the Irish Government, and the parties seek to implement the Belfast agreement. One of the key aspects of the agreement is a recognition by all parties that we must acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation.
  40
  Action on the issue of "The Disappeared" was specifically mentioned in the report of the international body, the Mitchell report, on page 17, paragraph 52, in the chapter on "Further Confidence Building", which listed the
  "provision of information on the status of missing persons"
  among the factors that
  "would demonstrate a commitment to peaceful methods and so build trust among other parties and alleviate the fears and anxieties of the general population".
  Furthermore, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, in his report entitled "We shall remember them", on page 38, paragraph 5.38, dedicated a paragraph to "The Disappeared" and "Exiles". Sir Kenneth voiced
  "a fervent appeal, on behalf of those whose loved ones have disappeared without trace, that those who can offer information about their fate and where bodies may lie should do so now".
  The Bill provides the most effective and speedy response that the Government can give to this tragic issue.
  The background to the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill is the tragic disappearance of a number of people during the 1970s and 1980s. It is believed that those people were abducted and killed by terrorist organisations although, to date, none of the bodies have been recovered.
  On 29 March this year, the Provisional IRA made a public statement, declaring:
  "We believe we have established the whereabouts of the graves of nine people … information regarding the location of these graves is now being processed and will hopefully result in the speedy retrieval of the bodies".
  In response, the Government, together with the Irish Government, announced their intention to introduce legislation in both jurisdictions to ensure that any evidence that emerged as a result of information given to help to locate the remains would not be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions. T0he Bill is the culmination of that commitment.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is not the practical effect of that self-denial the granting of an amnesty for those crimes and those criminals? Would not it have been better, and more honest, to create a commission such as that presided over by Archbishop Desmond Tutu rather than to cloak the effect in such a way?
  Mr. Ingram: It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had read the legislation; it is not an amnesty any more than the decommissioning legislation is an amnesty. I say it again: I shall explain the background to the Bill and the purpose underlying it.
  Sir Kenneth Bloomfield referred to the concept of a truth and reconciliation commission in his detailed, heavyweight report on the question of how we deal with victims. It is for the whole of society in Northern Ireland—not only for the Governments or, indeed, the political parties—to determine whether it wants to move forward in such a way. The issue belongs to the whole of society and has to be handled in line with its wishes.
  Such a conmiission has not been ruled out, but communities have to come together and define what they seek to achieve. If I read the remarks of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) correctly, he said that

  41
  we should not be proceeding in this way in respect of the information that the Provisional IRA has said that it is prepared to provide to the Governments, through the commission that will be set up, and that we should leave the issue on one side until such a body is established. It may never be established and, on that basis, the remains of the victims may never be recovered. That would be a matter of great regret.
  The Bill is the culmination of the commitments that we gave in response to the Provisional IRA statement. The Irish Government published their equivalent Bill at the end of April. Together, the two Governments have shown their willingness to respond quickly to achieve a resolution of this issue.
  The two Governments have recently signed an agreement to establish an independent commission which would facilitate the location of the victims' remains. I can announce this afternoon that Sir Kenneth Bloomfield has agreed to take on that role on behalf of the Government, if the Bill is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
  Elements of the longer statement made by the Provisional IRA on 29 March caused further hurt and grief to the families, because of what it said and what it did not reveal. Many families were expecting to be informed that their relatives were on the list given by the Provisional IRA. The fact that they were not caused deeper pain—pain on top of what they have had to endure over the long years since their loved ones were taken from them. The unfounded allegations made against those on the list were a cruel blow to families who had already suffered too much.
  It is worth while putting on record the fact that those listed by the Provisional IRA in its statement—Seamus Wright, Kevin McKee, Jean McConville, Columba McVeigh, Brendan Megrew, John McClory, Brian McKinney, Danny Mcllhone and Eamon Molloy—had not been charged with any crime, were not judged in a court of law, were not given the right of a fair trial and were not given the right to appeal against the summary injustice served on them. They were probably beaten and tortured before they were killed. In short, they were denied their fundamental human rights.
  There is no international call for an independent inquiry into their tragic deaths, the human rights lobby is silent on their treatment and, of course, they have lain in undisclosed sites—some of them for nearly 30 years. I want to make it clear that the measure before us does not condone any of that; it is not a concession to terrorism or barbarism—it is a wholly humanitarian gesture that has been made because the Government genuinely care about the families, who have borne so much grief and hurt over all those years with quiet dignity.
  I do not speak for the families, but I know this: it is their right to know where their loved ones are buried and no one with any humanity in his heart has the right to deny the families the right of laying their loved ones to rest with the dignity they deserve. The humanitarian need to introduce this legislation with such urgency is therefore obvious.
  The plight of the families of "The Disappeared" is at the forefront of our minds. Their suffering still strikes a deep chord. It has gone on for too long. However, it is not within the Government's gift to deliver the final objective—namely, the location of the remains. That can
  42
  be done only if those who know their whereabouts come forward with the information. I take the opportunity today to call on them to do so as a matter of urgency.
  The Provisional IRA must demonstrate its good faith by delivering on its publicly stated pledges to the families. I urge those who have information about the remaining victims to do likewise. Those families have already suffered too much. It is time for this issue to be dealt with once and for all.
  I emphasise that the Bill does not grant immunity from prosecution. It is not an amnesty. These were vicious and cowardly crimes and, if evidence is obtained from other sources, it will be used to seek to bring those responsible to justice. However, just as it is absolutely right that the efforts to obtain justice should continue, it is equally important that we consider the needs of the families and do all that we can to alleviate their suffering.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister named the various civilians who were tortured and murdered by the IRA and whose remains are covered by this legislation. What about the body of Captain Robert Nairac? Is that also covered, and is there any indication from the Provisionals that they will surrender those remains?
  Mr. Ingram: We have no information on that. Once this legislation is in place, it will hopefully remain in place after the remains of the nine who have been listed by the Provisional IRA have been located and given a burial by their families. Thus the legislation could be used for any further information that is brought forward. Hopefully, it may encourage those who have those details to give it to us.
  It is not just Captain Nairac; others are on the list of known victims who have disappeared over the years. The total number is not precise—a figure of 20 has been quoted. It is about collating information from a variety of sources, and the best estimate on which we are working is in the region of 16. Only nine victims have been identified, so there is still some way to go to deal with all the families who have lost their loved ones in this way over the years.
  As I said, this measure is about alleviating suffering. It is a humanitarian gesture. That is why the two Governments have decided to proceed with legislation enabling those with information to come forward and the location of the bodies to be disclosed. Like so many issues in Northern Ireland, this is a difficult one. However, I believe that the Bill succeeds in striking the right balance between taking vital steps to alleviate some of the suffering that has afflicted many families in Northern Ireland for many years and ensuring that the scheme is workable in practice.
  Before I deal with the detailed provisions of the Bill, I should like to acknowledge the difficulties that the Bill's timing has posed for a number of right hon. and hon. Members who had intended to travel to north America with the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Committee on this issue. It is unfortunate that the two dates clashed because some hon. Members would have wished to participate in this debate. I am grateful to those who have taken the opportunity to be here today. Their presence is noted, and I look forward to their contributions to the debate.

  43
  I am also grateful that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was able to travel to the United States, albeit with a somewhat depleted delegation, on what should prove to be a very worthwhile venture. What the delegation is investigating and examining is of importance to Northern Ireland.
  The Bill provides the legislative framework for a commission, which will be an independent organisation established by the agreement signed on 27 April by the British and Irish Governments. The agreement was laid before the House on 5 May in accordance with the practice known as the Ponsonby rule. It is hoped that today's debate will give hon. Members an opportunity to express views on the agreement if they so wish.
  Both Governments are doing all they can to ensure that the commission can begin its work as soon as possible. We are confident that in proposing to agree with the Government of Ireland on an early date for the agreement to enter into force—before the 21 days required by the Ponsonby rule have elapsed—we are acting with the will of the House.
  The Bill makes supplementary provision for the commission and the commencement and duration of the provisions relating to the commission, and enables certain immunities and privileges to be conferred on it. The commission will facilitate the location of the remains of persons killed before 10 April 1998 as a result of an unlawful act of violence committed on behalf of, or in connection with, a proscribed organisation.
  The Bill further provides three types of protection for information provided to the commission about the whereabouts of the remains of the victims. First, clause 3 provides that relevant information provided to the commission, or evidence that comes to light as a result of that information, shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceedings, except if that evidence might, in some circumstances, be helpful to the defence of an accused person.
  Secondly, clause 4 places prohibitions on the forensic testing of the remains or other items found, subject to limited exceptions, in particular for the purposes of determining the identity of the deceased persons and how, when and where they died.
  Thirdly, clause 5 provides that information provided to the commission will not be disclosed except for the purpose of facilitating the location of the remains. However, the Bill leaves the commission with a discretion to pass certain information to the family of the victim.
  Finally, the Bill makes provision for the grant of warrants authorising entry and search of private premises in the special circumstances to which the Bill relates.
  I shall return to the theme with which I began: the pain and suffering of the victims' families, which we can only begin to imagine. The Bill will not lessen their loss, but in some small measure the location of their loved ones' remains and the opportunity to lay them to rest will at least enable them finally to close this chapter of their lives and to begin to move on. We must afford them that opportunity. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I should like to begin by passing on the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the shadow Secretary of State, who is unable to be here today to open the debate for the official Opposition as he is attending his father's funeral, as the Minister graciously acknowledged. We thank the Minister for his expression of condolence.
  I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the main provisions of the legislation and some of the background to it, which includes some of the most gruesome events that have occurred anywhere in these islands in the past 30 years. The Bill deals with some of the most callous acts of barbarism imaginable: acts of almost unspeakable evil. They are a deep stain on the history of Ireland.
  I should state at the outset that Conservative Members believe this to be an odious Bill, and we deeply deplore the fact that it is necessary to introduce it. Frankly, it sticks in the throat that we should have to bargain with terrorists to locate the bodies of people whom they have killed. The fact that we have to introduce the Bill tells us a great deal about the real nature of terrorist groups in Northern Ireland—in this instance, the Provisional IRA. The Bill shows once again the depths of depravity to which they have so often stooped in terrorising the people of Northern Ireland.
  I should like to pay tribute to Seamus McKendry, whose organisation Families of "The Disappeared" has been bravely campaigning on this issue for the past five years, to Church leaders and cross-party groups such as New Dialogue, and to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's victims' commission. They have made a huge contribution by drawing political and public attention to the plight of the victims' families. They have put pressure on terrorists to come clean and identify the burial sites of "The Disappeared", and to show, for once, an ounce of humanity.
  The facts about "The Disappeared" speak for themselves. Between the early 1970s and the early 1980s, about 14 people were abducted, tortured and then murdered, mainly—although not necessarily exclusively—by the IRA. Some of the bodies were then dumped in unmarked graves on both sides of the border, and some, it is rumoured, in Scotland. It is widely believed that others suffered an even more gruesome fate.
  The victims were people like Jean McConville, a 37-year-old widowed mother of 10 from the Divis flats in Belfast, who disappeared from her home on 7 December 1972, never to be seen again; people such as Kevin McKee and Seamus Wright from Andersonstown, who were abducted and murdered in October 1972; people like Brendan Megrew, who was taken from his home in Twinbrook, Belfast, in 1975 by a nine-member IRA gang, and Columba McVeigh, aged 17, from Dungannon, who in the same year was abducted and killed, again by the IRA. And let us not forget Captain Robert Nairac, who was dragged from a pub in South Armagh in 1977, tortured and killed. Like the others, his body has never been found.
  Imagine the anguish, imagine the heartache, imagine the desolation of simply not knowing what happened or where those bodies are. Imagine also the anger of people who, in many cases, live in the same districts as the killers

  45
  of their loved ones, and who in many cases see the suspected killers day after day. Imagine the anger of knowing people whose information, while not necessarily wiping away the pain, could at least have eased it.
  Let us take the case of Margaret McKinney, whose son Brian was abducted in 1978. I had the privilege of meeting her in the House at lunchtime today. She describes the past 21 years as
  "Hell; the darkest corner of hell".
  She has suffered heart attacks, and for years would sleep in her son's bed wrapped in his coat. Frequently she would see the men who had taken Brian, but remained powerless to do anything, such is the fear and intimidation endemic in the communities that the IRA controls.
  For years, relatives have pleaded with the terrorists to give them the information that would allow them to give the victims decent, dignified, Christian burials; for years the terrorists and their supporters have flatly refused. Indeed, for nearly 20 years the IRA denied that it was responsible. For its own vile ends, it has chosen to remain silent for all that time. That puts in stark perspective the IRA's hollow claims to be the defender of its community. In fact its members are the terrorisers, the intimidators and the real enemies of the communities that they claim to represent.
  Nothing illustrated the sickening nature of the IRA more graphically than the announcement of the results of its so-called 18-month investigation of the whereabouts of "The Disappeared", for which we were all supposed to be grateful. On 29 March, the IRA said that it had been able to locate nine people's graves—as if they are not aware of the fate of the others—stating:
  "We are sorry that this has taken so long to resolve and for the prolonged anguish caused to the families".
  Having made its announcement and raised the hopes of the families, the IRA then prolonged the anguish by demanding that the British and Irish Governments pass legislation granting immunity from prosecution before it would reveal any further information. Helen McKendry, the daughter of Jean McConville, said:
  "I am really, really angry with the IRA. I thought when they made their statement a fortnight ago, all our suffering was over. They raised our hopes, knowing full well they had no immediate intention of delivering the bodies".
  Mr. Swayne: Will the suffering and anger to which my hon. Friend has referred be expiated by the Bill, the effect of which is to make it more difficult to secure a conviction against the perpetrators of those awful deeds?
  Mr. Moss: I hear what my hon. Friend says. It was a question that he put to the Minister of State. I will come to it a little later, if he will be patient.
  In reality, the announcement had precious little to do with the victims' families. It was a propaganda stunt that was aimed at boosting Sinn Fein during the Hillsborough talks in the week before Easter, taking the pressure off the organisation over its refusal to decommission its illegally held arms and explosives. As Mr. Seamus McKendry of Families of "The Disappeared" said:
  "I'm an out and out nationalist, but I feel terribly ashamed to call myself Irish tonight. We're being used as pawns here".
  46
  Then there was the staggering hypocrisy of Sinn Fein's chief negotiator, Martin McGuinness, who stated that he hoped that an end was in sight to the "misery" being suffered and that
  "we are hopeful that the plight of these families can now be alleviated".
  Does he expect anyone in Northern Ireland, or elsewhere for that matter, to believe that the organisation responsible for that misery is any other than the one to which his party is inextricably linked: the Provisional IRA? What organisation could seek to gain credit and gratitude for finally disclosing the whereabouts of people whom it has murdered other than the Provisional IRA? That is a disgraceful state of affairs, but one, sadly, with which we are going to have to live.
  That rather sums up our attitude to the Bill: it is a necessary evil. There should be no need for such a Bill. If we were dealing with reasonable people who were truly committed to peaceful and democratic means, there would not be such a need—but then, that is not the IRA's way.
  As the Minister of State has explained, the Bill covers three main areas: to make provision concerning the commission established by the agreement between the British and Irish Governments on 27 April; to provide various protections for information provided to the commission and any evidence that might come to light as a result about the whereabouts of the remains of the victims of violence; and to make provision in relation to the entry and search of premises where remains are likely to be found.
  The most controversial parts of the Bill are clause 3, dealing with admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, and clause 4, which deals with restrictions on forensic testing. I hope to come soon to the section of my speech that answers the important question put by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
  On admissibility, having studied the Bill, we are satisfied legally that it does not amount to a general amnesty, or immunity from prosecution in connection with the original offence of murder. If any other evidence comes to light other than that covered in the Bill, it could be used in a criminal proceeding. I note, however, a distinction between the Bill as drafted and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. That legislation contains a much more explicit reference. As section 11 states:
  "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any power or discretion exercisable apart from this Act in relation to the institution or conduct of criminal proceedings."
  That makes it clear, as Lord Mayhew said at the time, that
  "apart from the Bill's provisions, the institution or conduct of criminal proceedings is unaffected."—[Official Report, 9 December 1996;Vol.287,c.27.]
  We would have liked an equally clear statement in the Bill. We ask the Minister, between now and Committee and Report stages on Wednesday, to ask his people to look at that section.
  Whatever the legal position, in practice it is difficult to see how any prosecution in such cases could be successful without the ability to carry out a forensic test on a body. In such circumstances, the reality is that the Bill does, in effect, amount to an amnesty for people who have committed the most appalling and savage acts of murder.

  47
  If a prosecution for any of those crimes were successful, the individuals concerned would be eligible for the accelerated release scheme and would, under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, therefore serve only a few months. Most right-thinking people would find that totally unacceptable.
  We have carefully examined the restrictions on forensic testing, which are very wide in their application. We believe that clause 4(2) just about satisfies the legitimate concerns about post mortems, and enables the relatives to establish not only an individual's identity but how, when and where he or she died.
  The Bill seeks to bring some belated comfort to grieving families and relatives of "The Disappeared", and to encourage the IRA—having announced that it has located nine graves—finally, and after many years of waiting, to tell the families. Whatever our misgivings about the Bill, the families' wishes guide our approach to it—their wishes must be paramount. They want no more delay. As one family member recently put it:
  "We have been making funeral arrangements for three decades".
  On that basis, despite our deep reservations about the Bill, we shall do nothing today to impede its passage.
  5.1 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise that I shall be brief.
  Last week, I was told by a man in Northern Ireland whom I regard highly that one consequence of the Bill, intended or unintended, would be to give some protection to a senior IRA member who was involved in some of the killings and who is still active.
  I agree with much of what the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said. He was absolutely right to say that the victims suffered the most horrendous torture and callous murder by brutal murderers claiming to be freedom fighters or defenders of the Union. Those freedom fighters and defenders were and are terrorists, because they conduct their so-called military campaigns in a mature and parliamentary democracy.
  This afternoon, together with the hon. Gentleman, I met Mrs. Margaret McKinney and another lady, whose father was brutally abducted and murdered and whose remains may well be located somewhere south of the border. If I had any doubts about the Bill—here is where I part company with the hon. Gentleman—they were dispelled when I met those two ladies. The Bill's objective, as the hon. Gentleman said, is to help families to give their loved ones a Christian burial.
  I told Mrs. McKinney that, as I come from a fishing family that has lost at sea family members whose bodies were never recovered, I have a glimmer—but only a glimmer—of their heartfelt wish to recover the bodies of their loved ones, so that they may provide them with a Christian burial. They want to place their loved ones in a family plot, so that they may visit the graves. I have some understanding of that supreme wish.
  I said that I would speak only briefly, and I shall honour that promise. However, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State a couple of questions. On the Bill's financial effects, the explanatory notes state that the commission will be allowed an upper limit of
  48
  £100,000 for its members to pursue their laudable objectives. I tell the Minister—my hon. and old Friend from the other side of the Clyde—that I should not want any type of financial restriction to be placed on the commission's activities.
  The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire repeated an allegation, which I have heard back home, that more than one victim is buried in Scotland. Can any credence be given to that? If so, I hope that the commission will receive every co-operation and assistance from the Scottish Office and others who may be able to help.
  In some ways, I find it difficult to support the Bill, but I remember what I heard at the meeting this afternoon about the needs and wishes of the people directly concerned. We have an obligation to those poor distressed people. We honour that obligation by passing the Bill.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I wonder whom the Bill is meant to benefit. I have the greatest sympathy for those who have lost loved ones and who, for two or three decades, have failed to discover the whereabouts of the bodies. I should very much like them to have their minds put at rest.
  To echo what the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, people in my family have been killed in time of war and the bodies have never found their way back to the local churchyard, but they are not forgotten. "The Disappeared" will not be forgotten either, but I have deep reservations that we are compromising the fundamental law, which is meant to protect society as a whole, to deal with a specific and tragic problem. I am even more concerned that those who will benefit most are those who have held society to ransom for the past 30 years.
  This is a moment to take stock. We are not considering the IRA exclusively, but it has the people with the information on the location of the bodies of "The Disappeared". We should look at their performance and response to all that society has tried to do over the past four years in particular. First, we had the Mitchell commission, which lasted for a year and produced a report. That was followed by two years of negotiations. Since the Stormont agreement was signed on 10 April 1998, another year has elapsed. Do Ministers believe that the measures that we are being asked to endorse will bring us one step closer to stability in Northern Ireland?
  I am not the only one to have grave reservations. Monsignor Denis Faul—a member of the Catholic community for whom I have the highest regard and to whom I refer not infrequently in the House—suggested at the time that he was not convinced of the sincerity of the announcement that nine bodies had been located. The activities of Sinn Fein-IRA since then make me suspect that he was probably wise to have had those deep reservations. With virtually everything that Sinn Fein-IRA have promised, or intimated, that they might deliver over the past four years, little has come to fruition. That deeply concerns me, and society as a whole in Northern Ireland.
  It is no secret that I am a wholehearted supporter of the Stormont agreement. If it is implemented in the spirit in which it was derived, Northern Ireland ultimately will be

  49
  a better place. However, I must acknowledge that many of my friends do not believe that, as I do. Many of us who believe and support the agreement have sacrificed the support and sometimes even the friendship of those who have been colleagues in the past. That is why I view what is happening here today with such gravity. If we are to pass a Bill which, in political terms, benefits exclusively Sinn Fein-IRA, we should examine the performance of that organisation—both the terrorist, active side and the paramilitary-linked political party, Sinn Fein.
  When George Mitchell examined the likelihood of peace being brought to Northern Ireland, he looked at the question of disarmament and posed a question that reflected his concern about republican and loyalist paramilitaries. He asked whether there was
  "a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of such arms to work constructively to achieve"
  —he did not use the word "address"—
  "full and verifiable decommissioning."
  He answered his own question by saying that he was convinced that that was the case, and that it was conditional only upon it being
  "part of the process of all-party negotiations."
  That report was available for everybody to see and there was no misunderstanding of the meaning. Sinn Fein-IRA knew exactly what Senator Mitchell meant. However, nobody could have given him that assurance about the paramilitaries except the paramilitary-linked political parties, Sinn Fein, and the various loyalist parties such as the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party. It was on that basis that those people sat within the negotiating process and were tolerated by those of us who found their presence disturbing, to put it mildly. However, we got an agreement.
  I do not believe that Senator Mitchell would have indulged in the nonsense of proposing that any party should commit itself to achieving disarmament or any other matter that was beyond the competence of that party. Yet from the time the agreement was signed a year ago, we have been through the mill again and again, trying to convince people nationally and internationally that disarmament was an integral part of the agreement.
  Members of Sinn Fein, who expect to put the godfather of godfathers—Martin McGuinness—in an Executive position, do not agree; they have argued that there was no obligation to disarm. In fact, a year ago they implied that they would disarm by 22 May 2000—two years after the referendum. We are halfway there now, but they are careful not to mention that date at present. Instead, they tell us that they were led to believe that all they had to do was to call a ceasefire and they would be admitted to Executive authority in the Government of Northern Ireland. They certainly were not led to believe that by any Member whom I have heard speaking in this House. That is not the case; it has never been the case—it was made clear, not only by Members of this House, but by people in the Irish Government and elsewhere, that guns could not be on the table, under the table or outside the door of the chamber of democracy.
  Through this Bill, we are pandering to Sinn Fein. Let me tell the House what the attitude of Sinn Fein was yesterday at its conference in Dublin. Francie Molloy, a
  50
  district councillor and senior Sinn Fein negotiator, gave a warning that republicans would not accept exclusion and would not hand over their weapons. He said:
  "If the SDLP, Dublin government and the Unionists think they can go about this"—
  that is the government of Northern Ireland—
  "without us, then we will make the six-county statelet ungovernable."
  Mr. Andrew Hunter rose—
  Mr. Maginnis: Francie Molloy is the same person who told us that, if members of the IRA did not get their way, they would go back to doing what they do best. I give way to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman has just made the point I had intended to make.
  Mr. Maginnis: It is always good to know that I answer questions before they are asked.
  The reality today is that we must consider whether to make a deal, even though its conditions are not properly defined, with the IRA. Have the Government received a total and unequivocal commitment from the IRA that, when this legislation is passed, those nine bodies will be delivered to their families? I do not believe that the Minister can give me an unequivocal assurance on that point.
  At present, many things are happening in Northern Ireland. We have a commission—led by Chris Patten, a former Member of the House—to consider the future of policing in Northern Ireland based on normality. His original mandate was based on what policing in Northern Ireland would be if normality were achieved. What has that been changed into? It has been changed into a demand by Sinn Fein-IRA that dominates our press: that the RUC should be disbanded. Everything we have heard from the IRA supports that view, including the ultimate of all statements from Father Desmond Wilson, who said that if one existing member of the RUC was recruited to a new police force, that police force would be unacceptable. What sort of accommodation, realism or concern for society as a whole does that display? None; nothing.
  I went to one of the public hearings of the Patten commission and I listened to the families of those who had committed the sort of atrocities that led to the deaths of "The Disappeared", and I heard them tell how their family members had been murdered—people who were killed carrying out a bomb and gun attack on Loughgall police station. I began to wonder whether I lived on the same plane as those people—I probably do not. They wondered why the police, if they knew that Loughgall was to be attacked, had not walked up, tapped the attackers on the shoulder and taken them into custody for their own safety. In effect, that was the view expressed. We all know what happens to our soldiers when they confront terrorists, because so many have died as a result of doing so.
  However, I suppose there was some virtue in all that, for during those hearings, the IRA overplayed its hand and revealed the nonsense of its arguments, not prior to the agreement but in its wake, when people were supposed to accommodate one another for the good of society. Society's interests had been discarded within the short

  51
  few months between the signing of the agreement and those public hearings. Sinn Fein-IRA recognised that they had oversold themselves and pleaded for the commission to hear them in private. Speaking on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party, I did not require or request a private hearing, but gave my evidence to the commission in public and made myself available to be questioned by the commissioners in public. Why did Sinn Fein-IRA need those private hearings? That must be carefully considered when Patten finally reports.
  Having oversold themselves, did Sinn Fein-IRA go away and rethink their obligation to society—not to Ken Maginnis or the Ulster Unionist party, but to the society they claim to represent and care for? On that subject let me ask, is there any evidence that Sinn Fein-IRA care even for their own tradition? I discovered quite recently that during the troubles, 190 IRA activists had been murdered—not killed carrying out illegal acts, but assassinated. Having heard a great deal about collusion, I expected most of them to have been killed by loyalist paramilitaries. Surprise, surprise, I found that although loyalist paramilitaries were responsible for murdering 26 of them, other IRA members were responsible for murdering 164 of those 190 IRA activists.
  Let us look at other figures that are available. Of the 1,543 Roman Catholics killed—I am ashamed that many were killed by people from my tradition who call themselves "loyalists"—381 were killed by republican paramilitaries. The combined total—which comprises the innocent and the guilty—killed by the RUC, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment and other Regular Army units was 316. In other words, more Roman Catholics were killed by republican paramilitaries than by the Army, the RUC and other legitimate forces combined. As we know, most were killed by the legitimate forces in their actions against terrorists.
  Mr. William Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that Brendan "Speedy" Fegan, who was shot dead in Newry yesterday, would appear to be another addition to that total? As he lay dying, the alleged drug dealer said, "It was the Provies, it was the Provies."
  Mr. Maginnis: My hon. Friend is probably right: very few illegal activities in Newry are not controlled by the Provisional IRA. While I do not want to jump to conclusions, I have no doubt that Mr. Fegan would have known and been able to identify his attackers.
  I mention these issues, which are not related directly to the Bill, because of the specific understanding that somehow, those who are connected with militant republicanism can behave normally and can assimilate back into society. Many of us wish that such people were willing to do that and that we could move towards the new millennium in the way in which we have dreamed about for the past three decades. However, I hear nothing but propaganda from Sinn Fein-IRA. Having tried recently to pervert the work of the Patten commission—I am confident that they will not succeed—those same people are now claiming that the RUC and others are in collusion.
  I have been associated with the Royal Ulster Constabulary since about 1958, and I know that it is, and has been, in possession of very specific details about
  52
  militant terrorist activists on both sides of the community. If the RUC had colluded even half-effectively with one terrorist group or another, one might expect to have seen the top terrorists removed from society. We would have expected to see many terrorist leaders killed in the past 30 years. However, the figures that I have cited show that that is not so: in fact, few top terrorist leaders have been assassinated by the opposing side. The same is true of loyalist paramilitaries. About 30 per cent. of loyalist activists were killed by republicans and two thirds by their own loyalist paramilitary colleagues.
  One case that is receiving a great deal of publicity at the moment is that of a solicitor, Pat Finucane. I have dealt very publicly outside the House with Pat Finucane and the implications of all the activities of the Finucane family. Rather than go over that ground, I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that during the terrorist period in Northern Ireland, a considerable number of people in the judiciary and the legal profession have been murdered.
  Three judges have been killed: Lord Justice Gibson, Judge Rory Conaghan and Judge William Doyle. Three resident magistrates have been attacked: William Staunton and William McBirnie were killed, and Mary Travers was killed while protecting her resident magistrate father, Tom Travers. Rory O' Kelly, a constituent of mine and a Crown prosecutor, was murdered, as was Edgar Graham, who was a friend of mine, a law lecturer and a very active member of my party. Last, but not least, solicitor John Donaldson was killed. I know that Rosemary Nelson was horrifically murdered recently, but I am referring to past murders, the last of which occurred in about 1987.
  Those nine murders were carried out by the IRA, yet I have not heard any of that band of professional, middle-class solicitors, who are now highlighting the Finucane case, ask whether there was any collusion when Lord Justice Gibson was killed on the very border while crossing from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland. I have not heard any cry about whether Superintendents Breen or Buchanan, returning from a conference with the Garda Siochana, were killed as a result of collusion. In neither case am I questioning the integrity of the Garda Siochana—and just as I exercise that discretion, so I believe society must exercise discretion and judgment when people point the finger, in an organised and malicious way, at the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  Those matters concern me when we propose to introduce a Bill that is tantamount to, if not technically, an amnesty for those who have committed murder. It is understandable that, in our sympathy for those who have suffered, we seek a solution, but we must do that not emotionally or in isolation, but while considering the interests of society as a whole.
  There will be those who will say to me after I have spoken, "Well, you agreed to the release of prisoners." Reluctantly, I did so, but those prisoners have been brought before the courts and convicted, their sentences have been determined and those who are released early will serve the outstanding part of their sentence on licence. Murderers are on licence for the rest of their lives. That is an accommodation. I believe that the Bill is a travesty and it would be wrong of me not to point out those facts to right hon. and hon. Members.
  I remember that in that past, we heard a great clamour to get Sinn Fein-IRA back on our television screens. People told us that if only they were back on the air,

  53
  the presenters, the interlocutors and those who produce programmes would put Sinn Fein-IRA to the sword, would test them and would reveal the true nature of terrorism. Where have all the people who said that gone? The terrorists are treated by Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office with greater courtesy than elected Members of Parliament, and the same is true of presenters on television. There is no reality attached to the enormity of the crimes that those terrorists have committed.
  There is no real need for the Bill except that Sinn Fein-IRA have the knife into society in Northern Ireland and further afield, and if they can twist it further they will do so. [Interruption.] The Minister will excuse me if I tell him that I would prefer it if he did not mutter his obscenities under his breath. If he wants to intervene, he may do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and he knows that we do not tolerate that sort of thing in the House. There was no question of obscenities.
  Mr. Maginnis: I think it is obscene when a Minister thinks more of those who have committed crimes against society than of his colleagues in this House, who are elected and who seek to represent the views of their constituents. Muttering under the breath is irksome, to say the least, but I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We are none of us experts in forensic science, but hon. Members know enough to know that if the IRA were genuine in wanting to meet the needs of those families who have suffered, we would not require this legislation. What possible forensic evidence could be gleaned after 30 years? Well, we might get some details about the extent to which the victims were tortured, their limbs broken and their bodies disfigured before they were disposed of.
  Dr. Godman: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman in silence and I have not been muttering. Does he intend to divide the House on the Bill? He mentioned all those terrible murders of legal representatives by members of the IRA, but does he accept that there are profound differences in the circumstances surrounding the murder of Robert Hamill and the dreadful murders of those legal representatives?
  Mr. Maginnis: My apologies; I am not sure that I picked up everything that the hon. Gentleman said to me. I shall try to answer him in so far as I heard what he said.
  I believe that every killing is wrong. I believe that murders often take place in widely differing circumstances. The death of Robert Hamill—about which I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with a great deal of detail in the not too distant future—had nothing to do with neglect by the RUC of its duties. The RUC extricated Robert Hamill from where he was being beaten by a mob of loyalist thugs and saw him off to hospital, where his injuries—I need to be fairly careful what I say—would not have led to his death if they had been properly diagnosed and treated. I do not want to enlarge on that now, but that is the reality, because on the same night, a son of a councillor colleague of mine was beaten up and much more severely injured and, thanks to good medical care in the same hospital—
  Mr. William Ross: At the same time.
  Mr. Maginnis: Indeed, at the same time. Thankfully, he survived. Therefore, we need to be very cautious about
  54
  believing the republicans' propaganda tales. I believe that if someone—the Minister could do it—obtained and made public the radio messages that were passed by the police that night, a great deal of light would be shed on Mr. Hamill's tragic death.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde touched on the points that I made about lawyers who were clamouring for an inquiry.
  Dr. Godman: One question that I asked was whether the hon. Gentleman intended to divide the House on the Bill.
  Mr. Maginnis: I do not intend, if but a handful of Members are prepared to vote against the Bill, to divide the House. In fact, I certainly do not intend to do so. I gather from what the Conservative spokesman has said that the Conservatives intend to abstain. I had hoped, in so far as they have quite vociferously condemned the release of prisoners, that they would give us a lead on this—I believe much more serious—issue. If they gave us a lead, I would be happy to vote against the Bill, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is not much point in the small number of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament pitting themselves against the serried ranks of Labour Members.
  I had hoped that there might have been a little bit of sympathy for society as a whole, instead of the self-satisfied looks on the face of one or two members of the Government. The Government know that they can force the Bill through Parliament by weight of numbers, without any serious opposition. I had hoped that they would have considered the implications of what is being enacted as carefully as I am trying to consider them.
  I have made my feelings clear. For 30 years the House has sought to make accommodation with those who cannot and will not be accommodated. I sought to do that as a publicly elected representative. I have hoped against hope that at some time people would realise the futility of it all. However, I believe that we won part of the argument. There is now little doubt that the Irish Government have on many issues, including disarmament, a conviction not far removed from mine. On this issue, however, I believe that they are wrong. They are creating an accommodation for Sinn Fein-IRA that will be hurled back in their teeth.
  I will be delighted if the victims of violence, the families of "The Disappeared", are able to give a Christian burial to their family members as a result of the Bill. However, I must caution again and again that accommodation with those who will not accept accommodation is a futile exercise and merely brings demands for more and more, which is not in the interests of society as a whole. Further demands merely help those involved to keep their evil grip on areas within Northern Ireland where they have dominated by gun, bomb and threat for three decades.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: In the short time that I have been a Member of this place and listened to debates on Northern Ireland, I have become accustomed to the wide circuit of issues that we go through despite whatever we are debating. I understand that. It is part of the process of coming to terms with the

  55
  future and part of the process of coming to terms with the past and securing peace. However, sometimes I wish that we were not reliving every day the vendettas of the past.
  I shall refer specifically to the Bill and to its implementation, and especially to clause 5. I shall be brief. I am concerned to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister concretely what he envisages as the next steps in the implementation of the Bill. Sometimes these debates become not heated, but perhaps angry. Throughout debates on Northern Ireland over the past two years, and especially during the most difficult period, the Minister and the ministerial team, far from muttering obscenities, have been courtesy itself to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and to all sections of the communities of the Six Counties. As a result of that skilled diplomacy and courtesy, we have been able to weld together the peace process so far.
  On clause 5, and with regard to the next stages, who will be the agents of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims' Remains? We are to establish it, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, with a budget of about £100,000. We need to consider carefully who will be responsible for the detailed undertaking of the implementation of the commission's wishes.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has raised allegations of collusion in the past, allegations which have some currency and in some instances some accuracy. It is important that, as we implement the proposed legislation, we guard against any potential for even an allegation of collusion that may put lives at risk.
  What powers will the commission have over its agents, the staff who will be implementing the detail of the legislation, and what security will be in place, particularly for the protection of information that will be supplied as a result of this measure? I am concerned about clause 5 because the security of the information given is important. The providing of information may put further lives at risk on all sides. I am anxious under clause 5 because, there are no penalties for those who disseminate information who have no authority to do so, or who may wish to undermine the process on which we are embarking. This is not a sectarian point, because information may be forthcoming from all sides of the different traditions within the Six Counties. Therefore it is important that we give security to those who provide information. We must ensure that those who are charged with implementing the legislation are properly controlled and managed, and that, where necessary, penalties are levied against them. On all sides there is the danger of collusion.
  It is important that we put aside recriminations and past vendettas. The question has been asked about the prime motivation for the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the prime motivation is to ensure that those people who have lost loved ones will now be able to bury them, further come to terms with their grief and their loss, and move forward in their communities. Those families are the prime beneficiaries, and there may well be secondary beneficiaries, as we have heard.
  I support the Bill and wish it good speed. It is an important step forward in the peace process, and one of the confidence-building measures to which we have
  56
  looked forward for so long. However, it is critical that we hear from my right hon. Friend in detail how security will be provided to all sides when the Bill is implemented.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I profoundly disagree with the conclusion of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). I shall return to that in a moment.
  I listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I regret that he and I have not entirely agreed on every aspect of Northern Ireland affairs in recent months, but on this issue we can find appreciable common ground.
  I appreciated the Minister's comments on the fact that the debate clashed with the visit of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs to the United States. That was most unfortunate. I was one of the members of the Committee, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) is another, who decided to be present for this debate, rather than go to the United States. The Committee understands that the Government felt obliged to keep to a strict timetable. I do not agree with that, but I accept that it is a legitimate position for the Government to take and acknowledge the reason for the Government proceeding with the debate at this time.
  I listened carefully to the Minister introducing the Bill. He said that the Government were motivated with good intention and that the Bill was a wholly humanitarian gesture. With respect, I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that his intentions are misdirected, mistaken and misplaced. I fear that this is an obnoxious and dangerous Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) used the word "odious". I would not quarrel with him in that respect.
  The Bill is the antithesis of many of the values that the House exists to protect and promote. Under the provisions of the Bill, the political wish of the Executive further compromises and undermines the independent operation of the judicial process. The House should not accept that. Moreover, the fact that the Government are introducing the measure and that the Government of the Republic of Ireland are shortly to introduce a similar measure is a stark and gruesome illustration of the truth that the process of appeasement corrupts the appeasers.
  Civilised society is underpinned by core values, which we compromise or abandon at our peril. We are doing so with the Bill. Those values include the absolute rule of law, a judicial process that is free from political interference, and genuinely accountable democratic structures. Each of those values has been compromised in Northern Ireland as a direct consequence of Government policy and is being further compromised by the Bill. With the Bill, I fear, we plumb new depths.
  Northern Ireland is now a society in which morality and justice are twisted in the cause of political expediency. We delude ourselves if we think that a stable society can be built on such foundations. The Bill draws us deeper into the moral vacuum that we have created in Northern Ireland. It marks further inroads by the state into what should be the independence of the judicial process.
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is expressing his strong opposition to the Bill. If not through the Bill, how

  57
  would he bring about the return of the victims' bodies to their families? What measures would he prefer to be put in place, if not this measure?
  Mr. Hunter: I gave way to the Minister because of his Front-Bench position, and I note what he says. If I had a say in the matter, we would not be where we now are. My answer is that the process of law must operate independently of political interference, and in no case should politicians create circumstances that diminish the likelihood of prosecution. That is what the Bill, as I see it, achieves.
  Mr. Ingram: Can the hon. Gentleman then tell the House why he did not oppose the Bill on the decommissioning of illegally held weapons? That was a similar measure containing similar precepts. He did not oppose that Bill, but he is arguing strongly against this one. If I remember correctly, he supported the then Government—his Government—on that measure.
  Mr. Hunter: The Minister's observation is factually correct, but he may not be aware of the internal debate that accompanied that Bill—the attempts to dissuade that I and a number of my colleagues made. However, that Bill passed, and as the right hon. Gentleman correctly says, I did not vote against it. He will also acknowledge that on other measures, I did. Perhaps he is aware of the complexities of trying to influence Government.
  Let me make a comparative and illustrative point. Some of us have consistently argued that there is no justification whatever for the early release of terrorist prisoners. We maintain that it is morally wrong for others to argue that acts of violence are less serious if they are committed with political motives, and their perpetrators therefore can be treated more leniently. Early release, we maintain, has undermined and continues to undermine the rule of law, the bedrock of civilised society.
  Terrorism triumphed when the two Governments advocated early release and the political parties signed up to it. With this Bill, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said, the Government are trying to go a stage further. Until now, they have asked us to accept only that terrorists who have been convicted of murder and other hideous crimes should be released early. Now the Government ask us to accept that in specified circumstances use will not be made of certain evidence that might help to secure the conviction of terrorist murderers.
  With this Bill, the Executive seek to acquire further powers to tamper with the judicial process. The Executive—in addition to the powers that they already have to disregard, for political reasons, sentences passed by the courts—now, also for political reasons, want powers to ensure that, in specified circumstances, incriminating evidence, which might secure the conviction of terrorist murderers, cannot be used. That is an intolerable intrusion by the Government and one that the House should resist. Parliament should not grant the Executive such powers.
  I see the Bill as merely the latest obscene landmark that the Government have placed in the way of a process that was publicly launched with the Downing street declaration in December 1993—a process that I supported under the Conservative Government. After the then Prime
  58
  Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), had made his statement on the Downing street declaration to the House, I asked him, with precisely such developments as the Bill in mind, for an assurance that there would be
  "no let-up in the hunt for those that perpetrated terrorism".—/,[Official Report, 15 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 1080.]
  He gave such an assurance. The Bill is yet another example of how the present Government's policies towards Northern Ireland have departed from those of the previous Government and why some of us have little, if any, confidence in their handling of Northern Ireland affairs.
  I, too, have the deepest sympathy for the families, relations and close friends of "The Disappeared". I understand their grief. I certainly understand the wish of many of those people that the remains of "The Disappeared" should be transferred to consecrated ground and reburied with religious rites, but that desirable end does not justify these means.
  In Northern Ireland, democracy, decency and justice have been sacrificed for an agreement that does not remotely excise from society the belief in violence or the practice of violence. This measure corrodes and corrupts further; it further undermines the rule of law; it further extends political intervention in the judicial process; and it goes some way towards absolving murder and thereby diminishes the value of human life. That is not the route to follow if we want to establish stability and lasting peace in the Province.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred to the Downing street declaration. My views on it are on the record of the proceedings of this House, but I have often contended publicly that one aspect of that agreement made common sense: if terrorists want to be part of the democratic process, it is up to them to leave violence behind, to enter the democratic process on the same basis as everyone else, to be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means and to end their violence permanently.
  That is what paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration said, but, in the months and years that have passed, the terrorist has not come to play by the rules of democracy. The democrats have had to lower their standards to the level of the terrorists. Today, the House once again finds itself introducing unprincipled, dangerous and —as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said —odious legislation.
  May I enter part of the discussion that has been taking place? I do not think that the Minister is taking a giant leap from the release of prisoners and decommissioning legislation with this Bill. Its underlying principles are very much the same and, if one only looks at the short-term outcomes, one could even argue that it might be less problematic than the others, to the extent that there could be an upside —the long agony of those who have been waiting to hear something about the discovery of the remains of their loved ones might be lifted.
  Each of us would find it difficult to understand the anguish of people in such a situation, but I ask the Minister to think again about the long-term danger of this kind of appeasing legislation. The Bill clearly sets a

  59
  precedent, though I know that people will say, "Only for Northern Ireland." There will be a precedent none the less within Northern Ireland. Effectively, we are saying that there will be an amnesty —albeit in this limited area —for those who have carried out offences that have resulted in the death of individuals in the Province.
  I remember the signing of the Belfast agreement in April 1998. When pressed about the long list of concessions that were being made to Sinn Fein-IRA, the Prime Minister told us that the concession process was at an end, but, ever since, the concession process has been prominent in this so-called peace process. We are told by the Government that they are creating the necessary conditions for peace, and the Minister has told us that again today. Much of the apologia in the documentation handed out by the Government —the notes on clauses and so on —says that all the concessions may be hard for us to stomach, but they are necessary if we are to build a credible peace process.
  Can anybody show me where is the reciprocity within this process? What has Provisional IRA —and its fellow traveller, Provisional Sinn Fein —given to this process? Are we to thank them because, in name, they have called a ceasefire? As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said earlier, the dying words of a man last night identified the Provisional IRA as his killer.
  The Provisional IRA clearly has not lived up to what was expected by its fellow signatories to the Belfast agreement. The Government are creating evidence of the success of the terrorist organisations within Northern Ireland —effectively, they have been rewarded for their violence and can get away with murder. We have a terrible situation in which all we need to hear is a threat from the leader of a terror gang or one of his political spokespersons and the Government are running to appease them.
  Churchill was right when he said that an appeaser is a person who feeds a crocodile in the vain hope that it will eat him last. Over the past number of days, the Prime Minister has seen the teeth of that crocodile as it begins to move towards his hind quarters. His concessions to the IRA are appeasement of the worst possible kind —short-term payments to the ransom demands of the IRA. They will not build real and lasting peace, they cannot buy peace and they are destroying the genuine hopes of Ulster people for a peaceful future.
  Look at what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past 12 months: the Government have sought to create the conditions for peace by letting terrorist killers and bombers out of jail, by reducing the number of British troops in Northern Ireland and by turning a blind eye to the callous and multiple punishment beatings in Northern Ireland carried out by the terrorist organisations —and turn a blind eye they have. The Secretary of State has a power to stop prisoner releases if she considers that any of the organisations that the Chief Constable has publicly said are carrying out those punishment beatings are guilty of such crimes.
  The Government have also been establishing an international policing commission, which has effectively demoralised RUC members and will undoubtedly undermine the RUC when it eventually gives the results of its findings. They have established a human rights
  60
  commission, which consists of nationalists, their political representatives and those sympathetic to the republican and nationalist cause. None of its members represent the Unionist community.
  The Government have never insisted that the IRA decommission in order to be part of a Northern Ireland Government. I understand that today, a German magazine quotes the Prime Minister as reassuring republicans that words alone will be enough to satisfy him of their commitment to peace. Last year, the Prime Minister pledged that he would not let armed gunmen into the Northern Ireland Government. At the weekend, we were told that it is expected that the leader of the Provisional IRA, its supremo, who sat around a table while many of the odious deeds referred to in the Bill were carried out —everybody knows that he was the commander of the IRA —will be a Minister if Sinn Fein find entry into the Northern Ireland Government. He will be a Minister without ever having apologised for the Provisional IRA's deeds under his leadership, and without the least apology to the people of Northern Ireland for the decades of mayhem that they have had to endure.
  Today, we have before us another act of appeasement to the IRA. It is being bandied about as another confidence-building measure, a necessity on the road to peace. However, the Bill is nothing less than an up-front payment of another instalment in the IRA's ransom demand.
  The Belfast agreement promised us a "new beginning" and told us that peace was on the way. We were told that concessions to the IRA had all been worth it because the promised peace was here at last, yet just a year later, the British Government are engaged in another round of concessions to the IRA. The Belfast agreement is no doubt the master, but like all masters, it has slaves. The Prime Minister is undoubtedly one of those, slavishly devoted to a master plan that is not bringing about peace, but is capable only of bringing about IRA demands for a united Ireland.
  The Government must stop the pretence that they have a peace deal and face the reality that they must cease the endless conveyor belt of concessions to terrorism. Whether the Minister wants to face up to it or not, the Bill is an amnesty for those terrorists who were never caught, whose files remain open and who want accreditation from the Government that they will never face prosecution for their terrible crimes against humanity. Indeed, I note from paragraph 9 of the notes on clauses that the Government talk about the Bill providing protection for those people. Thus, this is a Bill to provide protection to terrorists, murderers and those guilty of the heinous crimes that we have seen throughout the decades of troubles.
  The irony of the Bill is that it comes at a time when this nation is engaged in a war in the Balkans. The Government tell us that we are there for "humanitarian purposes". The Prime Minister says that those who have breached the human rights of the Kosovo refugees face prosecution, yet in his own back yard, he asks us to agree to legislation that will expunge the guilt of those who murdered men, women and children in Northern Ireland, who kidnapped and who destroyed life, and who unceremoniously dumped bodies in unmarked graves, perpetrating an anguish untold on the families of so many in Northern Ireland.

  61
  How often have we been told over the years from the Dispatch Box that the Government will make every possible effort to ensure that people are brought to justice? They have said that terrorists will be hunted down. It is now abundantly clear that they have changed their minds.
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) did not answer the question that I posed to him about how we could recover those bodies and help those families if not by means of this Bill. Can the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) address his mind to that point? If not by means of this Bill, how, other than by his rhetoric, will he recover those bodies?
  Mr. Robinson: That question shows the moral decline of the Government. It assumes that it is society's responsibility to put right the wrongs of the terrorists. It is the terrorists who are responsible for "The Disappeared", so it is for them to say where the graves are. It is not for society to make concessions to the terrorists in order that they might do so. The question shows how the Government have declined over the past years and are now pandering to terrorists —give the terrorists what they want in order that they might give something back to society.
  Mr. Ingram: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should just continue to hope that the people who carried out those murders will eventually own up to their crimes? They have not done so for 30 years and they are unlikely to do so now. It is also unlikely that we could make them amenable to their crimes because we do not have the evidence. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that would allow those people to be made amenable, he can, of course, pass it to the RUC. It does not stop any one of those who have carried out those acts being brought to justice. I urge the hon. Gentleman to address his mind to that. This measure deals with limited immunity; it is not an amnesty.
  Mr. Robinson: That is the same nonsensical principle that the Minister enunciated in terms of decommissioning. He argued that we could not get the guns off those people unless we had this kind of legislation. The reality is that we did not require the terrorists to give up their guns. If the terrorists wanted to enter the democratic process, they should have abided by the rules of democracy, otherwise they should have been left outside the process and should not have had it both ways.
  Again, the Minister asks what we are to do to discover the graves of "The Disappeared". The finger of responsibility points directly and only at the terrorist organisations that are responsible. It does not point towards the rest of society. The rest of society has a duty, if it has information that could lead the security forces to the unmarked graves, to pass it on. Indeed, the Minister must accept that even if the Bill is passed, even after the knee-jerk reaction, we shall still need information in order to discover the location of the bodies of "The Disappeared". After its so-called 18-month investigation, the IRA has been able to indicate only a limited number, and time alone will tell whether information comes forward.
  However, there is no guarantee and this is a futile stab in the dark. The Government are acting like a puppet on a string, being pulled and pushed this way and that by the
  62
  IRA, while the IRA laughs and guffaws at the Government's weakness and ineptitude. Look at the lies that the IRA has already told. One moment it claims to have divulged information and the next it retracts it. This legislation exonerates the terrorists. It contains no punitive measure, no condemnation and no punishment for their now sanitised "unlawful acts". The commission that will be established is just a sop to the Provisional IRA. The lawful security forces are not even to be entrusted with, or given control of, these matters. Another so-called independent agency is to be established that will cost taxpayers thousands of pounds for endless searches and blindfolded goose chases. Look at the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that has already been wasted on the arms decommissioning body, and for no tangible benefit. The Government are throwing good money after bad.
  The spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, said earlier in our debate that the Bill tells us much about the inhumanity of the terrorists. I have to say that it also tells us a lot about the depths to which the Government are sinking in terms of appeasing the provisional IRA.
  It is exceedingly difficult truly to understand the torment of the families of "The Disappeared". They should never have been put in that position. Let the House be very clear: it is the IRA's responsibility to undo the evil that it has done —it is not the responsibility of the House or of society.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: I apologise for my slightly late arrival for the debate. A certain little local difficulty in Cardiff has been occupying my mind, and it continues to be a labour of love.
  The Liberal Democrats cautiously support the Bill. Like many hon. Members, we have some reservations about it. I am uncomfortable about some of the restrictions that the Bill will impose. Its approach is similar to that taken on forensic testing for decommissioned weapons, so a precedent exists. Many people did not like that approach, but it was required to move the peace process on, and the work on decommissioning is still in progress.
  It is paramount that the remains of the victims are found and returned to their relatives. That is what the families want, and it is the humane thing to do. The fact that the legislation is needed shows how cynical the paramilitaries have been about "The Disappeared", and about the peace process in Northern Ireland as a whole. The location of the graves should have been divulged long ago without any need for legislation. That would have ended many decades of anguish, pain and heartache for the families, and would have been seen as a confidence-building measure by the paramilitaries.
  The IRA showed its contempt by releasing a statement at the end of March in which it said that it had located the graves of nine people who had been murdered by the organisation, but did not reveal the location of the remains. It seems to think that its cause is more important than the feelings of people in Northern Ireland. It was a bitter and cruel blow for the families to have their hopes built up and then dashed again.
  We are not trying to appease the terrorists: we are trying to do something for the families. The paramilitaries could have ended their suffering if they had wanted to. The fact that the British and Irish Governments found it

  63
  necessary to introduce this legislation is a sad and damning indictment of the cynical attitude of the paramilitaries.
  Mr. Swayne: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise the contradiction inherent in his position? He accuses the terrorists of being cynical, yet he supports a measure that rewards their cynicism. He said that the return of the bodies was paramount. However hard a truth it may be to accept, does he not realise that the rule of law and righteousness is paramount?
  Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman's point is at the heart of the argument about which side one takes. We are not granting a victory to the paramilitaries. We are trying to right a terrible wrong and to alleviate the continuing suffering of people who want to know where their deceased relatives have been buried or where their remains are located. We could take the intransigent position described by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) that this is solely about whether the paramilitaries gain a victory. I choose not to take that position. As the Minister explained in his introductory comments, the Bill focuses on the victims rather than on the paramilitaries.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) questioned the sense of hoping for any act of good faith from the paramilitaries. I understand his scepticism, not least because he is well versed in the feelings of people who have experienced loss and unbelievable suffering at the hands of the paramilitaries. I do not belittle his position, but I beg the House to remember that the people at the centre of this issue have given the strong impression that they support what we are trying to do.
  It is my understanding that the families of "The Disappeared" have welcomed the Bill. They have said that they would agree to a great deal to get the victims' remains back. It depends on what one thinks is more important: the return of victims' remains to their families so that they can be given a proper burial and the long suffering can be put to an end, or the potential for a conviction and the avoidance of any hint of a precedent being set. My judgment is that the families of the victims are more important than the tenuous justification of not setting a precedent. Other hon. Members are entitled to take a different view: I am expressing the view of my party. I ask those who take a different view to consider seriously whether they have understood the feelings of the families who want the return of the victims' remains.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that appeasement corrupts the appeasers. I am not sure whether I agree with that in general terms, but I do not think that the Bill constitutes appeasement. It could more accurately be said of the Bill that the process of conciliation empowers the conciliators. The Bill is not about appeasement; it is about compassion. It is not about the killers, but about the victims.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Basingstoke, because, as other hon. Members have implied, the approach that he is taking is different from that taken by the Bill. The evidence suggests that his negative attitude towards the peace process has not been vindicated.
  64
  Although enormous difficulties are still ahead of us, there has been some degree of success. Some of the doubts expressed in the House have not been borne out in practice.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the Bill was unprincipled and dangerous. I doubt whether it is easy to characterise it as unprincipled. I have to believe in the Government's good intentions. I do not see what unprincipled motive could be ascribed to them in introducing the Bill. Perhaps it is a little dangerous and perhaps there is a risk, but we must recognise that there are risks for both sides as we move forward with such measures.
  There must be some give on both sides. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East that there has been precious little give by the paramilitaries. The Bill provides them with an important opportunity to show a modicum of humanity by releasing the information so desperately wanted by the families of the victims. We may be proved wrong, and if no action is taken as a result of the Bill, hon. Members who doubt that the Bill will do any good will have been proved right. We must let history decide, and I am willing to take a risk and lay the responsibility entirely at the door of the paramilitaries.
  The IRA has kept the locations of the victims' remains to itself and has disregarded the human rights of the relatives. The Families of "The Disappeared" group has welcomed the Bill, because it hopes that it will bring an end to the great suffering. The families have suffered a terrible injustice. Not knowing where one's relatives are buried is something that I would not wish on anyone. I can hardly believe that there are people who think that that promoted their cause or did anything other than condemn the organisations that carried out the killings. Let us remember that we are doing this for the families of "The Disappeared". They have been clear that they want us to respect their wishes.
  The Bill is not the ideal outcome, but nothing is ideal about the subject that we are debating. I should have liked the paramilitaries to act without any pressure and any conditions. The Bill should not be necessary, but we must deal with the real world and take the opportunity that we have before us. Without some movement by us, there will not be much chance of movement by the IRA, which will continue to hold the victims' families to ransom. That cannot be allowed to happen.
  The Minister said that this was a "wholly humanitarian gesture", and that is probably a genuine and correct aspiration on the Government's part. I do not think that there is anything for us to celebrate in the Bill, which we debate to the distant beat of a funeral drum; but I feel that a grief that, perhaps, we must all merely say we respect without being able to appreciate it fully is sufficient justification for us to act, even if that involves the small risk of a precedent that could prove problematic in the future.
  As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) rightly said, we are discussing gruesome acts, and what tragedies and crimes are concealed in the soil of Northern Ireland hardly bear thinking about. What a step it would be, however —albeit a small step —for us to pass the Bill, if it will end so much suffering in Northern Ireland. Another small step would be taken if, following the Bill's passage, the paramilitaries responded in kind and ended that great suffering. In effect, they have robbed

  65
  people of the opportunity to grieve. I accept that risks are involved, but perhaps after this debate the paramilitaries will find the decency to give them back that opportunity.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The divisions of opinion in the House, which are widespread, have already been made fairly clear.
  The Minister said that the Bill's purpose was to facilitate location of the remains of people who have been tortured and murdered by the IRA and buried in secret, and to restore them to their relatives so that their concern might be alleviated. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that that was the responsibility of IRA-Sinn Fein in any event. He also said that the IRA was simply twisting the knife. I note that the IRA is twisting the knife and being well paid for it —rather better paid than the soldiers and members of the RUC who were active in Londonderry on 30 January 1972, to whom no prospect of immunity will be available should they give evidence against allegations that are now widespread.
  Bereavement is, of course, always a painful experience, and those who are closest to the deceased always experience a sense of emptiness and desolation. That is what happens when a loved one passes away. The misery is multiplied when the death is unexpected, and there is no time to prepare for the loss of a family member or close friend. Most of us must come to terms with such an event at some time in our lives, but, when the unexpected tragedy is the consequence of an accident —and, above all, when murder has been the means of removing a family member —bitter anger is added to the grief. Such horrors have been visited on literally thousands of families in Northern Ireland and, indeed, Great Britain during the past 30 years by terrorist organisations which, in the pursuit of political and constitutional change with the aim of dismembering the kingdom, have used murder as the principal means of intimidation.
  Those of us who have the honour of representing Northern Ireland constituencies have visited many homes that have been torn apart by this wickedness, and have observed —indeed, on occasion have partaken in —the suffering of the families concerned. We are, therefore, not unaware of the feelings of men, women and children in such circumstances. The misery that has confronted us in such homes will live with us for the rest of our lives. Following our visits, bereaved relatives have come to us for help with compensation and other payments, and with numerous problems that have flowed directly from the murders that have torn their families apart.
  When I came to consider the Bill, I had those experiences —gained over 25 years as a Member of Parliament —to guide me to my conclusions. Furthermore, I have always lived in an area that is predominantly Roman Catholic, and, over the years, I have visited the homes of adherents of that religion as well as my own when friends and neighbours have died. The House will know —and, given your background, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know better than most —that Irish wakes, in Great Britain and further afield, have acquired the music-hall image of alcohol-imbibing parties; but that is far from the truth. Such events provide an opportunity for neighbours and friends to express sympathy and regret to the family, and, in the homes of deceased Roman
  66
  Catholics, to offer prayers. It is the religious element that pervades those dwellings between the death and the funeral, no matter what caused the death.
  I am also well aware of the importance that the Roman Catholic population attaches to the attendance of a priest at the time of death. When I read that the family of one of the unfortunates who have been tortured and murdered by the IRA are desperate for the remains to be returned so that they can give them a decent burial, I feel sure that the lack of the rites of the Church at the time of death is one of the factors that weigh most heavily with those relatives. To members of the Roman Catholic Church, that is an important aspect of their religion. As a member of the reformed tradition, I would attach much less importance to the attendance of a churchman at the death bed.
  It is against that background that I come to the Bill: a background of knowledge of members of the faith, many of whom have been employers and employees of my family in the past with whom I have grieved over the death of a loved one. I must say immediately that I consider this to be, in many respects, the most offensive Bill that I have ever seen.
  I ask the House to consider the circumstances in which the people now known as "The Disappeared" died. The term "Disappeared" is, I believe, of South American origin, and refers to the victims of regimes there. The root of the term is that those who died were killed by the Government and their agents, and that those killed and buried secretly in unknown graves were democrats seeking relief from the excesses of South American regimes.
  That does not apply to the victims of the IRA. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth in their case. With the exception of Captain Robert Nairac, they have all been civilians who angered the IRA for one reason or another. The IRA, of course, is a terrorist organisation committed to the destruction of the United Kingdom, and to using violence to achieve that. According to the IRA, all those victims were arrested, questioned, tried and executed for crimes allegedly committed against the IRA and its objectives. The first three terms, however, are simply euphemisms for being kidnapped, being tortured in the most foul and brutal fashion—in some cases, until death —and being brought before a kangaroo group of vile thugs, and at best being informed that they were guilty of crimes against the Irish nation. There was no defence lawyer and no independent jury, and there were no independent witnesses. Fourthly, the victims were sentenced to death without appeal, then taken out and murdered, or possibly simply shot on the spot. When that was over, their mutilated bodies were taken away and buried.
  Those are the vilest of crimes, which deserve the condemnation of every citizen —and, indeed, have been condemned by every citizen except members of the IRA and their apologists. Moreover, I believe that those who committed such crimes should be pursued to the end of their days in an effort to bring them to trial and impose just punishment. That is the normal standard in this country, and in every civilised state. If such crimes were committed in the United States, it would not be a question of Congress passing legislation to get the perpetrators off; they would be on death row, and would stay there until they were executed. Not only is that the normal standard in this country but the House of Commons, with the

  67
  enthusiastic support of the Labour party, created a law which allows us, 50 years after the event, to bring before the courts those who butchered the unfortunates who dared to oppose Hitler.
  The present Government are co-operating with Spain over the detention and extradition of General Pinochet. We have listened to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on the subjects of Kosovo and Brick lane. The Prime Minister drew a parallel between the fight to defeat "injustice and intolerance" at home and NATO's battle against ethnic cleansing in Kosovo:
  "The values we are fighting for are the same values: the right to live in freedom from fear, whatever your race or religion."
  He said:
  "When defenceless people are butchered by Milosevic in Kosovo, young men murdered, women violated, it is an outrage against the very values of humanity which are the world's only salvation. We must act to stop it."
  He went on to say:
  "This is not a battle for NATO, this is not a battle for territory, this is a battle for humanity. It is a just cause".
  He said later:
  "As far as the eye could see, a queue of humanity stretches through no man's land to Kosovo. I felt an anger, a loathing, of what Milosevic's policy stands for, so powerful, that I pledged to them as I pledge to you now: Milosevic and his hideous racial genocide will be defeated."
  With regard to the nail bombing in Brick lane and elsewhere in London, the Home Secretary told us:
  "This is a terrible outrage committed by people with no humanity. I know that the police are devoting huge efforts to find the perpetrators."
  The Prime Minister delivered a powerful condemnation of the same bombing, declaring that an attack on a single community was an attack on Britain as a whole:
  "when the gay community is attacked and innocent people are murdered, all the good people of Britain, whatever their race, their lifestyle, their class, unite in revulsion and determination to bring evil people to justice."
  He called for
  "the decent majority in society to take a stand against prejudice and bigotry."
  He said:
  "On the face of it, it is a long way from Soho, Brick Lane and Brixton to Kosovo. But they are linked by the battle against bigotry and hatred —a battle of values."
  That is what the Bill comes down to.
  In all those instances, the nation claims, through our top Ministers, to believe in the rule of law, and expresses its determination to see it applied despite the costs in trade, the blood of our fighting men and the treasure involved, yet the Bill continues down the path of undermining the rule of law, which was so well begun by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
  The latter Act is costing £90,000 per month —the total cost so far is, I think, £2 million —for no weapons. It introduced the abhorrent principle —and it is abhorrent —that evidence as to the identity of murderers and other criminals that is uncovered in the operation of the Act could not be used in evidence in court. Clause 3 builds
  68
  on that hideous principle. It prohibits the admissibility of evidence that is found during the recovery of a body where such evidence would be useful to the prosecution.
  It does not stop there. Any evidence that would help the defence of such people could be used in court. In other words, half truths —a fancy name for lies —are now legal tender to protect the most vile and brutal of thugs, who have tortured and murdered citizens whom the Government, the police and courts have a duty to defend. It is, of course, a sickening fact that, even if detailed and assiduous police work managed to secure a conviction for any of those murders, the persons convicted would be out of prison in a maximum of two years.
  The Bill is the product of a Government who, in opposition, accused others of a lack of morality. This is a question of morality —of simple right and wrong and nothing else. The Bill should never have seen the light of day. It should be opposed for the idea that easing the pain of victims' families is a good reason to forget the sobs, screams and pleas for mercy that were uttered to the merciless.
  The Bill is a foul, odious besmirching not only of the House, but of the nation. In passing it, we become defenders of those same torturers and murderers, and accessories to the crimes that they commit. The Under-Secretary may smile at what I say, but at least I believe what I say. I wonder: does he believe what he is putting before the House?
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for arriving so late and then wishing to contribute to the debate. My excuse is that the issue that we are dealing with is a matter that I have raised on numerous occasions in the House and elsewhere.
  In fact, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was usually aware of what I was going to say. Time and again, I had pushed forward the issues of intimidation, terror, people being placed in exile and the bodies of "The Disappeared" so much that she knew where the question was coming from. She would then produce the answer, and we would see what the latest stage of that particular game was.
  My reason for being late is that, suddenly, a constituency issue of some considerable importance emerged. a matter that may form part of the Adjournment debate that I have on Thursday night.
  I support the Bill, but I realise that it has many of the problems that hon. Members have stressed. Moral and legal dilemmas are involved in a such measure, which have been strongly stressed by certain Members.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that it was a simple matter of right and wrong. The problem is that matters of right and wrong are seldom simple. This is a complex matter of right and wrong. Arguments on one side outweigh legalistic and constitutional considerations about how we should handle matters of law and order —they are overruled by other considerations.
  It seems that the overwhelming argument why we have this unfortunate legislation is that it is for the benefit of the families of "The Disappeared". They have been through horrendous experiences, which have gone on for

  69
  years and years. Not only have they not been able to lay to rest their loved ones and to grieve. Often, they have been unable to express in the communities in which they have lived their concerns and their condemnation of those who have not allowed the bodies of their loved ones to be returned to them.
  Initially, after their loved ones were murdered, those people may have sought justice. As time has gone on, what they have wanted is some concern, some compassion, and the ability to bury their loved ones and to complete the grief that they have had for years and years. That must be a strong consideration. The issue of right and wrong must be weighed against that consideration. It has tremendous weight.
  We are talking about potentially, we believe, 14 bodies. It might seem that, in the weight of things, and with all the terrors that have occurred in Northern Ireland, it is a minor and small problem, but it is not for the people who have been consumed by the experience of losing loved ones in such circumstances. It is right that we should be concerned with such a matter in the House, and consider legislation to help them to overcome the considerable problems that they have faced.
  The second reason why the Bill deserves support is that it will help in furthering the peace process. I have always argued that we have to address the issues of recovering the bodies of "The Disappeared" —so that they may receive a Christian burial —and of stopping intimidation and violence. Recent debate has helped to address the latter issue. Although violence and intimidation have not stopped, they —especially IRA intimidation and violence —have been reduced. I am sure that the attention paid by legislators to the issues has helped.
  We have yet to address the issue of those who have been sent into exile and are not allowed to return to Northern Ireland. We should never forget those people, or allow the IRA to forget them.
  I believe that if progress is made on the three issues —recovering the bodies of "The Disappeared"; stopping violence and intimidation; and enabling the exiles' return to Northern Ireland —the IRA will have demonstrated a shift in its horizons, attitudes and approach.
  I condemn the IRA as much as any other hon. Member speaking in the debate, but we have to seek a shift in the IRA's position. We need to encourage the creation of shifting sands—the ultimate aim of which will be an arrangement on decommissioning. If the IRA takes a step in the resolution of one problem, it should be able to take another step, until we reach the big prize —thereby firmly establishing the peace agreement and the Assembly. Addressing the three issues will not solve all Northern Ireland's problems —that will take a considerable time —but the most intractable problem of all will almost have been cracked.
  The Bill will assist us in starting that process. I grant that it would have been better if the IRA, in response to all the arguments and pleas that have been made, had readily announced the locations of the bodies and allowed access to them, so that "The Disappeared" could be returned to their loved ones. It would have been better if there were no need for the Bill. But no one was able to find the bodies. Given the IRA's position on the issue, we have been pushed into passing this legislation.
  I accept that the IRA has helped to shape the legislation; but circumstances often shape our legislation. We have to respond to circumstances, and do so in a way
  70
  in which our moral case is advanced, and in which the least possible damage is done to legal and constitutional principles. The Bill is not without problems, but I believe that it advances our moral case.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman has always been positive, and most tangibly so when addressing Northern Ireland issues. However, does he agree that his very honourable objective will be frustrated if the obligation does not fall fairly and squarely on the shoulders of IRA-Sinn Fein, and if not remorse, but reward motivates the actions of IRA-Sinn Fein? That is the point that I have tried to make in the debate. We are not seeing any sign of remorse from IRA-Sinn Fein, but we are offering reward.
  Mr. Barnes: I agree that the IRA's position on the issue is disgraceful and that it has shown no remorse. However, I do not believe that the IRA will be rewarded by the legislation. I also believe that, at long last, the families of "The Disappeared" will not be given a reward, but be shown the decency that they should have been shown years ago. Although their relatives should never have been the victims of any organisation, once they had been, their bodies should have been returned. As the IRA —for various reasons —did not want to accept responsibility, that was not done.
  I should say what I believe is wrong about the IRA's position on the issue, so that there is no doubt about it. Although we may disagree on this particular legislation, our attitude and approach to the issue may be the same.
  Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman mentioned "reward" in relation to the families. Does he accept that —using his own terminology —if a "reward" is the Bill's desirable end product, it extends to absolving murder?
  Mr. Barnes: "Absolving murder" is a rather grand description of the Bill's provisions, as it suggests that we shall be able to catch the criminals involved and properly to pass sentence on them. We know that that will not happen. Without such legislation, there will be no possibility that the bodies will be returned.
  The Bill may allow people to get off the hook, but I do not think that that hook will catch anyone anyway. Moreover, we do not have any other means of achieving our objective. Although the Bill deals with a complicated issue and is not entirely good, concern and compassion for the victims and their families should lead us to support it.

  It took the IRA far too long to move on the issue. When it did make a move —at a delicate stage in the negotiations on establishing the Assembly —it was more like a ploy, as if the IRA was not genuinely moved and concerned by the issue. The IRA's action seemed to be only a cynical concession, for which it expected something in return. However, its concession must have gained it no advantage among any "audience" in Northern Ireland or Great Britain.
  Subsequently, the IRA said that it knew the location of only nine of the 14 victims. It has yet to make any provision for the other five victims. We also have no guarantee —but only the possibility —that, when the legislation is passed, the bodies will be returned.
  Worst of all, the IRA listed the "crimes" of those whom it had so ruthlessly murdered. Even then, the IRA had it wrong. The family members tell us of the obnoxious claims made about the "crimes" of their loved ones.

  71
  The Bill is not really about the IRA; it is about the families of "The Disappeared" and how we may assist them. If the Bill also encourages the IRA in making what it considers —in its own terminology and chopped logic, not ours —to be "a concession", it may be easier to make subsequent progress, getting us a little further down the road. However, it has taken us ages to get this far. The IRA should have taken its limited action —and we should have been considering this type of legislation —ages ago. The IRA should at least have made that limited move to allow us to produce such a Bill before.
  I hope that the Bill is supported. We understand the problems, but it is justified by the circumstances and the opportunity that it will give to the families to bury their loved ones and overcome some of the massive traumas that they have suffered year after year. For some, being able to visit the graves of their loved ones in their last few years of retirement would be more important than it is to anyone else who has buried a relative. For most people, visiting the grave of a loved one is a ritual because they have a regular opportunity to do so. For the families of "The Disappeared", it will never be a ritual.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a sombre debate. It has reminded all of us who have been listening of the horror that has been visited on the people of Northern Ireland over the past 30 years. It has allowed us to focus on the activities of the Provisional IRA and the way in which it has treated sections of its own population, whom it said it would protect. IRA members have murdered people, concealed their bodies and refused to give any information about their fate or their whereabouts.
  We are all united in believing that it offends every tenet of human decency for the IRA to act in that way after murdering someone. For many years, one of the most characteristic views of Northern Ireland on our television screens has been of funerals. Often, they have been the funerals of terrorists —members of the Provisional IRA —who have been lawfully killed in the course of carrying out their murderous enterprise. At no time in the past 30 years has it been suggested that, as happens in certain countries, the state should deny burial to those who have perpetrated such crimes or the opportunity to mourn them, because we stand by human rights and human decency. Even if we try to see some rightness in the cause of the Provisional IRA and to apply its selective morality, it is impossible to find a shred of justification for what has happened. The IRA has offended every tenet of human decency. The debate has provided an opportunity for hon. Members to express their contempt for that behaviour.
  Two mutually irreconcilable views have been expressed during the debate. We have heard powerful and eloquent speeches from the hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), for Greenock and lnverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). They all pointed to the need for constructive measures to give those who mourn the opportunity to bury their loved ones. That is a powerful argument, which the House should not lightly disregard.
  Equally, it has been impossible not to have considerable respect for the views of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), my hon. Friend the
  72
  Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). We cannot minimise the step that we are taking with legislation that invites immunity from prosecution —or at least disallows any forensic evidence that might accompany the discovery of the remains of those who have been murdered from being brought in any prosecution.
  Comparisons have been made during the debate between this Bill and the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. I accept that the same tests were applied. Any forensic evidence that is gleaned from weapons that are handed in will not be used against anyone. There is a powerful argument that the mere removal of weapons from circulation is an important step in preventing their further use. It is highly unusual for a prosecution for murder to take place without direct forensic evidence relating to the remains of the deceased. It has happened, but it is very unusual and very difficult. I fully accept that the Bill does not provide an amnesty to those who perpetrated the offences, but it is right to acknowledge that its practical effect must be to make it most improbable that anyone will ever stand trial for the murders, unless someone confesses or provides evidence so powerful that it would convict those responsible without forensic evidence.
  There are two matters on which I should like assurances from the Minister. We very much hope that if the Bill is passed, remains will be disclosed and discovered. If that happens, it is essential that in the forensic examinations that take place with a view to the inquest, the full facts and circumstances, in so far as they can be found, should come to light. The Bill should not result in those facts being brushed under the carpet for the convenience of those who perpetrated the offences. It has been pointed out during the debate that there are powerful grounds for suspecting that those who were murdered were also tortured and treated in the most abominable fashion. It is right that those facts should not be concealed from the public if they come to light when remains are found. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that, although the evidence will not be admissible in a prosecution, it will be available through the inquest procedure so that people will know what happened.
  Mr. McDonnell: I should like clarification on that from the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the further dissemination of information should be at the behest of the family, or should it be determined by the commission? Members of the family may wish to be aware of some of the information, but they may not want it to be disseminated more widely.
  Mr. Grieve: Some clarification from the Minister on that would be helpful. Clause 4 clearly
  "does not prohibit a test or procedure the purpose of which is to discover information in relation to an item where the information is sought for the purpose of establishing, for the purposes of an inquest, the identity of a deceased person, or how, when and where he died."
  I infer from that that there will be inquests if remains are found and that the usual consequence will flow from an inquest: the public will be made aware of how the people died. However unpalatable some of the facts that emerge

  73
  as a result may be, those matters should be made public. I see no reason why they cannot be made public, even if the main thrust of the Bill were to go through.
  Mr. Swayne: I agree entirely with the thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he not believe that he is raising the idea of increasing the public demand for justice while the Bill removes the possibility?
  Mr. Grieve: I take my hon. Friend's point, and that was a matter to which I was going to refer in a moment. When the full facts emerge, it is likely that they will cast considerable doubt on some of the comments made by the IRA in its mealy-mouthed responses to the events of the past 30 years, and they may well excite a great deal of public comment. However, we should bear in mind the fact that there is powerful evidence that the relatives of the deceased support the Bill. That is an important consideration; although, as has been said in the debate, it is clearly not the overwhelming consideration.
  In the same way, from time to time, people may ask in a court of law that malefactors should not be punished, even though they themselves have been affected personally. However, the law is there to be upheld, and generally the views of victims —although they will be listened to politely —are not necessarily given priority over what is regarded as the public interest. The public interest aspect of the Bill is of paramount importance.
  Another matter on which I seek clarification is this; the point has been made that we are dealing with the possible location of the remains of nine murdered people, as alluded to by the Provisional IRA. Yet there is a general public suspicion that there are a number of others who were victims of the Provisional IRA, although it is possible that some may have been the victims of other paramilitary organisations. It is clearly desirable that, in so far as it is possible, an explanation should be forthcoming as to why the locations cannot be divulged. There may be a number of unpalatable reasons. One may be that the locations are wholly inaccessible. Another may be that, as a result of the ruthlessness of the killers, the remains of the murdered have been effectively destroyed.
  I ask the Minister to clarify why, under the Bill, there would not be immunity for a person who cared to give the commission details of how someone met his end as a victim of the Provisional IRA and an explanation of why there was no possibility of recovering the remains. If such a provision is not in the Bill, we might wish to reconsider the matter. It is clearly desirable that, in so far as it is an informant's information, he should be protected if we are to get an explanation of what happened. That goes hand in hand with the question of finding remains. I hope that the Minister will address that point. When I read the Bill, I felt that it was inherent —or at least implicit —that such information would be covered by it. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments.
  We must consider also some ironies in the situation. It has been said that the measure should be proposed as part of a general pattern of reconciliation; something that may be desirable. However, I am sorry that if we are coming to this point, it should not be at a time where there is clear evidence that reconciliation has taken place. If we were confronted with the Bill at a time when the Executive had been set up, when decommissioning was under way, when Sinn Fein was participating and when there were clear
  74
  signs that democracy was beginning to thrive, it would be easier for hon. Members —particularly those who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland —to accept the need for the Bill, notwithstanding the problems that it poses.
  I can well understand the fears expressed that the Bill is seen merely as another ratchet by which concessions are made to terrorists who have no intention of giving anything in return. It may be that terrorists, or those who wish to give the information, should beware. If some of the victims were tortured, it seems to me that the immunity that we may provide them with in terms of evidence in relation to the findings of the bodies may be limited, if recent court decisions in this country in respect of international conventions are accepted.
  One can foresee a situation where, in 10 years' time, someone might find that their best remedy, if they wished to see prosecuted a terrorist of whose guilt there was clear evidence, but for whom evidence in relation to the remains was also required, was to go abroad and seek extradition from a third country, in exactly the same way as this country has faced problems in terms of General Pinochet. It is important that we remind ourselves of that. We are going down a similar road of making concessions, as was done in Chile, for the sake of achieving limited amnesties and some degree of reconciliation.
  It seems to me that there are a number of clear and possible benefits from what the Government are seeking and —notwithstanding our reservations —it is for that reason that we will abstain tonight. First, I wish to refer to the families. Clearly, their views are not paramount, but they are entitled to great consideration. That must be weighed against the likelihood of remains ever being found so that they could be used in evidence in criminal proceedings in any event.
  In many cases, we are talking about episodes —dark and horrible episodes —that are now many years old. Others are far more recent. However, the inability to detect the remains of those murdered up to now does not suggest a great likelihood of that happening in future. If it were to happen in future, it is more likely than not that it would happen in circumstances either of denunciation or of confession, which would, in all probability, get round some of the problems in terms of the amnesty element of the Bill. The question of the families' wishes merits great consideration.
  Another matter has not been addressed fully in the debate. It has been suggested that, in this case, a concession is being made to terrorists. It is true that —strictly speaking, and in purely legal terms —such a concession is being made. However, the fact that we have debated this matter for some three and a half hours —and the fact that if the remains of those murdered are discovered, there will be massive attendant publicity about what the IRA did over this period —seems to me scarcely a victory for the IRA's cause.
  If anything was likely to expose the hollow rhetoric of that organisation and the underlying nastiness that has characterised its operations, it must be the public exposure of what they did to those victims. There was never any justification for that, and the best weapon that the IRA ever had in the matter was the silence that it brought to the matter. The IRA was silent about what it had done. The IRA denied it year after year, and it has been forced in the peace process —however imperfect it may be—to

  75
  accept and admit its actions. If it honours its commitments as a result of the Bill, the IRA will be forced down a road which, over time, will be shaming to it; and it will deserve every ounce of shame that it receives.
  I do not see the Bill as a victory for terrorism. If the Bill works—I very much hope that it does work in the way in which the Government desire —the cause of democracy, freedom and those who believe in human rights can be enhanced.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman made the point that the legislation was in the interests of the families. Taking into consideration the point he made about how it would reflect on the IRA, is there not a possibility that the legislation will go through, but that members of the IRA will drag their feet and the bodies will still not be revealed? Does he see any merit in at least time limiting the Bill, so that it facilitates, within a specified period, what the Government intend? I am still not in favour of the Bill, but would there be some merit in that course, in terms of what we want to achieve?
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, although I wonder if, in reality, it will be of any advantage to the IRA if their members do drag their feet. Let us consider the following scenario. The IRA have given several assurances. Legislation passed not only in this House, but in Ireland, is designed to facilitate the honouring of their pledge, but they then decide to do nothing. I should have thought that nothing could be more damaging to them —especially in view of the public disquiet that exists in the communities from which, over the years, they have claimed to derive their support —than to be seen to be unable and unwilling to honour their commitment. In those circumstances, the only possible conclusion that could be drawn would be that they were so frightened or ashamed of what they had done that they were unable to face up to it. That is not likely to do their cause much good at all.
  In the meantime, if the IRA did not divulge the information, there would be nothing to prevent anyone from being prosecuted if remains were found by some other means. In those circumstances, the benefit to the IRA would seem to be slight. We could time limit the Bill; the Minister may want to comment on that matter. However, once the measure is up and running, there must be an argument that there is no need to time limit it. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would address that question, because it might be argued that, if nothing has happened after a year, there was no point in introducing the measure in the first place. That might be a proper time to say enough is enough.
  I do not wish to take up much more of the House's time in concluding this debate on behalf of the official Opposition.
  Mr. McDonnell: I do not want to be confrontational in any way, but I should like to be clear about the views of the Opposition. If Opposition Members are to abstain in the vote on Second Reading tonight, is that because they are abstaining until they hear the response from the Minister on the detail of the Bill or because they oppose the Bill in principle —or, perhaps, a better form of words would be that they cannot support the. Bill? If the latter —
  76
  that they cannot support the Bill —reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier: the onus is on those who cannot support the Bill to offer an alternative that will allow those families who have lost their loved ones to discover their bodies and bury them, and put that part of their lives behind them.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but it seems to me that he might be missing one aspect of the case. He and other hon. Members have laid great stress on the need to help to satisfy —in so far as we can —the perfectly understandable desires of the relatives of those who have been murdered. I sympathise with that. However, as I said, there was nothing wrong with the point made by some Opposition Members that it is not the job of the Government or of the House to alter the law, or the way in which the law should normally operate, in order to satisfy that need. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question must be that we could tell people, "We cannot do that for you." If we were to say that, it would not be inherently wrong in any way, but at the same time, I say to the Government and to the Minister that I am sympathetic to what they are trying to achieve.
  The Government have a primary responsibility to carry through their business and to take policy decisions that are often difficult. That is why it appears to Opposition Members that the correct course of action, in this particular circumstance, is to abstain. We shall of course participate in the Committee, in so far as we are able to do so. If we can make a sensible contribution at that stage, we shall do so.
  What it comes down to is that the Government hold out the hope that the legislation might be constructive for the families and for the peace process, and constructive in making those who have perpetrated these crimes face up to their actions. There are legitimate grounds for that hope, but that must be set against what appears to Opposition Members to be the proper repugnance of right-thinking people to indulge those who have committed such offences by even going to the extent that we propose for the purpose of achieving that result. That appears to us to be a legitimate reason for abstaining on the Bill. We share the Government's hope and wish them every success in implementing the measure. We hope that it fulfils the Government's expectations for it, but we shall take the course that I have outlined.
  7.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, this has been a sombre debate. However, it has also been moving, and for me it has been educative. We have heard many contributions from Members who have had experience in Northern Ireland during the past 20 to 30 years. We might be travelling along different paths, but we all want to achieve the end result of ensuring that there is comfort for the families of "The Disappeared".
  The House has realised that the Bill has a humanitarian purpose —that is a core issue of the Bill. I share in the moving tributes that have been paid to the families of "The Disappeared". Several hon. Members referred to some of the families who were in the House today. Members on both sides of the House met members of those families. Margaret McKinney, whose son Brian was

  77
  killed, was in the House today, as was Anna Macshane, whose father, Charles Armstrong, was abducted from Crossmaglen. One group has not been mentioned today, but it deserves to be recorded —WAVE, or Widows Against Violence Empowered. Members of that group have played a positive and constructive role —they were represented here today by Sandra Peake, and I pay tribute to them.
  I shall try to deal with the points that were made in chronological order. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) made a number of points. He asked about the financial provisions of the Bill. The explanatory notes give a figure of approximately £100,000 for the commission, but, in giving that figure, we do not suggest that there will be any financial restrictions. Those resources will be shared when the commission comes into being as a joint international body, but we do not want to limit its work. If extra commitments are envisaged, we shall consider sympathetically any representations from the commissioners.
  My hon. Friend also asked if credence could be given to stories of victims being buried in Scotland. He expressed the wish that the Scottish authorities should co-operate with the measure. I know that distressing comments have been made about the disappearance of the victims. The problem is that the lack of firm information has given rise to rumours, and the sad fact is that, until information is forthcoming, we cannot know for sure. However, the Bill is drafted so as to cover all possibilities and I have every confidence that the Scottish authorities would co-operate fully if that was deemed necessary.
  I welcome the positive comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). He drew to our attention section 11(2) of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, which states:
  "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice any power or discretion exercisable"
  and so on. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall consider that issue and report back before Committee stage.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made a lengthy speech. He asked about the deal with the IRA without a guarantee of nine bodies. I cannot stand here and say with conviction that nine bodies or their location will be forthcoming. However, we have the evidence received from the families and others who are willing us to act and the statement made by the IRA on 29 March, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Irish Government responded. We are legislating on the basis of that information and in the sincere hope that the agony of the families will end.
  I acknowledge that the statements made by the IRA and others gave families hope in the short term, and that some of those hopes have since been dashed. We do not want that hope to be lost, which is why we are legislating —so that the sorrow of the families can be ameliorated to some extent. We are acting in a positive spirit. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I hope that he accepts the sentiments I have expressed.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that the legislation was needed and that Sinn Fein and the IRA were twisting the knife. He said that the only danger posed by forensic testing is that it might reveal the degree of torture employed. However, the British and Irish Governments
  78
  believe that, without the legislation, there is no chance of information emerging. We want that information for the benefit of the families, which is why in the Bill we propose that there should be limits on forensic testing.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we need to examine the activities of both the IRA and Sinn Fein in respect of decommissioning —a point made eloquently by other hon. Members. I believe that the sole beneficiaries of the Bill will be the families of the victims. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, it will do the IRA and Sinn Fein no credit at all if there is no movement. No credit will be given to those who disclose information, for it is they who have shown great cruelty and inhumanity by prolonging the families' suffering for so long; nor, I believe, will there be any political credit associated with the paramilitaries.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act, and I looked up the speech he made on that legislation in December 1996, in which he paid tribute to Monsignor Denis Faul, as he did tonight. Monsignor Faul has been extremely helpful in acting as an intermediary between the families. He sees the merit in this process, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be comforted by the role that Monsignor Faul is playing, for over the years there has been no greater critic of the IRA's activities than that courageous man.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) called the Bill an obnoxious and dangerous Bill. I shall not indulge in party politicking tonight, because that would be inappropriate, but I looked up the hon. Gentleman's 1996 comments on what became the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act. He said then that he would support the Government. At that time, the hon. Gentleman was a Government Back Bencher and although that legislation exercised his mind greatly and he had considerable doubts about it, he gave the then Government the benefit of the doubt —I paraphrase, but I think those are the sentiments he expressed.
  On the face of it, none of us here tonight would want anything to do with the Bill, but we have to acknowledge the reality of 30 horrendous years in Northern Ireland and the continued grief and suffering of individuals. We have to respond to that humanitarian plea from the families by going some way toward helping them. We do not agree with the Bill from first principles, but we are proposing it because it deals with reality.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the judicial process, and I can state clearly that the Bill does not affect the judicial process, only the admissibility of certain criminal evidence, and the limited guarantee extends only to information given to the commission. If any other criminal evidence is found elsewhere, the case can be prosecuted on that basis. The provision is included for a specific reason, which is to enable the bodies to be located.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone referred to Sinn Fein's allegations of collusion by security forces. I note his points and recognise his sincerity, but to comment on them would be to stray from the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that the Government have departed from the principles underlying the previous Government's policies in Northern Ireland, adding that the end, although desirable, does not justify the means. The Bill does nothing to undermine such principles —yes, it gives limited protection in limited

  79
  circumstances, but it does so for humanitarian reasons. It does not undermine a principled approach to Northern Ireland matters, nor does it condone or lessen our disapproval of any of the crimes committed. The crimes were horrendous, and that the whole House shares that disapproval should be a matter of public record.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) mentioned article 5 of the agreement between the British and Irish Governments and asked about the next steps in the implementation of the Bill. He asked who will act as the commission's agents, and who will guard against the danger of collusion. If the Bill becomes law and the treaty comes into effect, the commission is established. The staff will be appointed by the commission, and it will be for the commission to ensure that the staff are aware of their obligation of confidentiality under clause 5 of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend also asked about penalties. Because the families are in receipt of confidential information, it is difficult to legislate comprehensively. However, if there were a breach of confidentiality, I understand that the individual involved could be subject to dismissal and would certainly be subject to the full disciplinary process.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that legislation would expunge the guilt of the murderers. Nothing will expunge their guilt, and their crimes can be prosecuted if other evidence is available. We are at one on that point: nothing will expunge their guilt. The hon. Gentleman also claimed that the Bill sets a dangerous precedent by giving limited amnesty and that concession is a prominent part of the peace process. He said that the Government are giving concessions to the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein without reciprocity.
  This process is not about concessions. It is about an agreed way forward in Northern Ireland, starting with the Belfast agreement. It is about an agreed way forward that is endorsed by the people, and that involves the British and Irish Governments and political parties from both sides of the community. I recognise that the process makes difficult demands of people on all sides. However, tonight we are replicating the courage and determination displayed by the politicians and the people of Northern Ireland. We have one aim: to achieve peace, stability and a normal democratic society in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked whether the lawful security forces will be allowed to conduct searches. The searches will be conducted by the security forces —that is, the RUC or the Garda Siochana —on the basis of information provided to the commission. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it was never intended to replace the security forces with the commission, and that information will be passed to the security forces.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked about the read-across to Bloody Sunday. The Attorney-General has provided an undertaking that persons giving evidence to the Bloody Sunday inquiry will not do so to their own detriment in respect of possible criminal proceedings. However, neither this Bill nor the Attorney-General's undertaking will prevent criminal proceedings being brought. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made several positive points that focused precisely on why we are debating this issue
  80
  tonight. I can do no more than commend him for that approach. This debate is about the families and their pain and about minimising their suffering if possible.
  Mr. Maginnis: The Minister referred to the soldiers in Londonderry. He said that the Attorney-General has given certain guarantees, but he said also that the soldiers will have to be identified. We know that, however innocent they may be, identification will blight their lives and leave them vulnerable to threats, and perhaps violence, from illegal organisations. Will he not reconsider the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and perhaps view it in the context of this Bill?
  Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman's point about Bloody Sunday is a judicial matter and will be referred to the Saville inquiry. The Attorney-General has made a clear public statement in that regard.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry referred to the horrendous nature of the crimes and said that those responsible must be pursued. The Government agree: the crimes are horrendous and the perpetrators can expect to pay for their actions. However, that issue is separate from this Bill, which has an humanitarian purpose.
  It is nice to see my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) back in the House after a long illness. He has a long-running interest in and dedication to Northern Ireland issues, and he made some very potent and moving points, focusing on the families and on the genuine desire for peace. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech and on his commitment to Northern Ireland issues.
  In summing up for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised several issues. We agree that the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 is quite similar to the Bill before us tonight, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments in that regard. He raised several questions about remains that are found and asked whether the full facts will come to light at an inquest. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a full post mortem and inquest will take place, as is usual with any murder. The findings will be made known in the usual way and the same amount of information will be made public. For example, the coroner might ask for evidence from a pathologist, and that will be given in public. As with any other inquest, the coroner will have full powers.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why someone giving evidence only about the cause of death will have no immunity. The Bill is about locating the remains of victims. The provision of relevant information by the commission will trigger the protection that is mentioned in clauses 3, 4 and 5.
  By way of intervention, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone asked about time-limiting the Bill. The Government are not keen to close the door to the provision of information about "The Disappeared" either from the IRA or any other organisation. The hon. Gentleman knows that the IRA produced a list of nine names at the end of March. Some people —such as the individuals who came to the Palace of Westminster today —have expressed dismay that their relatives' names were not on the list. The families of those who were not on the list hope that, in time, details of the location of their loved ones' remains will be provided. That is why we are not time-limiting the Bill.

  81
  I hope that I have responded to most of the points raised today. This has been a very moving experience for us all. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has met family members and others in Northern Ireland on many occasions. He knows more than anyone about the pain and the anguish, but we have seen it for ourselves today. We have spoken to the mothers who lost sons under the age of 21. Those mothers brought their sons into the world full of hope and joy for the future, but that hope and joy were cruelly extinguished. Those mothers and their families want to retrieve the remains of their loved ones so that they can celebrate their lives in a dignified and a Christian manner. We owe it to them to do everything possible to effect that outcome. If we can, we must ease their pain, not continue it.
  That is why the Government have introduced this Bill. We welcome hon. Members' comments, but we remain focused on its humanitarian purpose. We hope that the passage of this Bill will bring some comfort to those who have waited for it for far too long.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 10.

  Division No. 168]

  [7.50 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Alexander, Douglas

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Allan, Richard

  Clark, Paul(Gilligham)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Charles(Norwich S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlopthian)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clelland, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Colman, Tony

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cook, Frank (Stokton N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cotter, Brain

  Benton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darvil, Keith

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burden, Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burgon, Colin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Dowd, Jim

  (NE Fife)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cann, Jamie

  Edwards,Huw

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cawsey, Ian

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Chaytor, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chidgey, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Clapham, Michael

  Flint, Caroline

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Follett, Barbara

  82

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lewis, Teryy (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fyfe, Maria

  McDonnell, John

  Galloway, George

  McFall, John

  Gapes, Mike

  McIsaac, Shona

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McNulty, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  MacShane, Denis

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWilliam,John

  Goggins, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grogan, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hanson, David

  Maxton, John

  Harvey, Nick

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Healey, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heppell, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hill, Keith

  Morgan Ms Estelle (Cardiff N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Ms Estelle B'ham Yardley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Mudie, George

  Home Robertson, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hope, Phil

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brein, Mike (N Warks)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pond, Chris

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Primarolo, Dawn

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Rammell, Bill

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Reed, Andrew Loughborough)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rouche, Mrs Barbara

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rooney, Terry

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roy, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rauane, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Sawford, Phil

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Laxton, Bob

  Sheerman, Barry

  Leslie, Christopher

  Simpson. Alan (Nottingham S)

  Levitt, Tom

  Skinner, Dennis

  83

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Todd, Mark

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Touhig, Don

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Trickett, Jon

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Truswell, Paul

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Dr George(NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Twigg, Derek Halton)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Spellar, John

  Ward, Ms Clarie

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Watts, David

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Wighley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Willis, Phil

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wise, Audrey

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wood, Mike

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woolas, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Colvin, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hunter, Andrew

  Mr. William Ross and

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Mr. Desmond Swayne.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McFall.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (LOCATION OF VICTIMS' REMAINS) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified —
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act. —Mr. Clelland.]
  Question agreed to.

Travellers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland]
8.4 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: Shoreham, in the heart of my constituency, is currently a town under siege. That quiet, mostly residential Sussex coastal town, with a population of around 15,000, is an unwilling host to some 200 travellers, who occupy a derelict former council depot in an array of some 100 assorted charabancs, buses, caravans, lorries, ex-ambulances and former military vehicles, on a site known as Ropetackle, bordering the river Adur, on the edge of Shoreham's town centre.
The shanty town at the gateway to Shoreham, in the heart of my constituency, is hardly a good advertisement for visitors or potential investors in our town —let alone the immense disruption, anxiety and anger that is being forced on the local community. It is also seriously jeopardising the long awaited Ropetackle development plan set up by English Partnerships and, I hope, to be carried forward by South East regional development agency in the near future.
The number of travellers has been growing towards the current level of 200 since the end of 1997, but it was only a few weeks ago that the local council felt able to initiate legal proceedings to have the travellers evicted. Residents in the area around Ropetackle have been driven to despair. They have faced all-night parties and flashing lights. Their houses have vibrated to the thumping noise of music. Bonfires and smoke frequently engulf the whole area at night. There is heavy drinking among the occupants, and many others, suspected of being under the influence of various other illicit substances, stumble around the area.
Rubbish is strewn across the site, wrecked cars are being done up, discarded gas canisters are strewn on the public highway —certainly a danger —electricity cables have been stretched across a public highway, and welding equipment has been left where children can play with it. Ropetackle is, in short, an environmental hazard, with 200 people living in cramped conditions. Human waste is dumped at the bottom of residents' gardens. Sewage and pollution are gratuitously dumped into the river. Fences are broken down, kids play on top of dangerous piles of wrecked cars and climb on to the adjacent railway line. Guard dogs bark all night long and scavenge around the site and the town, causing traffic accidents and attacking residents.
A neighbouring garage site —a private business —has also been occupied by the travellers, and is in danger of going under. The garage has been broken into, the proprietor is unable to use part of the land for his legitimate business, he may lose insurance cover for his business, and he has been threatened with violence by the travellers.
The whole town of Shoreham is being intimidated. Drunken travellers, often crazed out of their minds, roam the town, rummaging through bins, causing traffic accidents, being abusive to residents and terrorising little children on the way to school. There has also been an outbreak of petty crime, which is more than a coincidence. Many shops and pubs in the town of Shoreham have now

85
barred travellers. Residents have organised petitions, and they are frustrated by the local police, who in many cases are powerless to bring the siege to an end.
I shall read out comments from some of the many letters that I have received on this subject from my constituents. One that I received a few weeks ago reads:
"On the night of Saturday, 13th March. there was another all night party in the Council building area … There was a lot of noise and very loud music until 7.30ish in the morning which meant another night of very little sleep … Once again the piece of land at the rear of one of our neighbour's garden … was used as a toilet by some of the people from the party (and not just as a urinal)."
Another letter states:
"The stress of having this in our backyard is unbearable. We could not function as a family with three young children, after losing sleep, so we have taken to sleeping in the front downstairs room of our house at weekends … We cancelled a Bank holiday break in Wales —which we had already paid for in advance —because we had no confidence in leaving our property vacant for 2 nights … This is the effect those 'spongers' of society have had on us."
Another report by residents says:
"Children have been seen defecating over the edge of the wall on the riverside as well as people emptying buckets of waste into the river … It is impossible to sell houses in the vicinity of Ropetackle due to the presence of the travellers."
Many of my constituents are literally prisoners in their own home.
We are not talking about gypsies or Romanies, who are officially defined as legitimate nomadic communities, who have a pattern of travel for a specific economic purpose and who are necessarily limited in number. We are talking purely about travellers, in this case from as far afield as Eastbourne and Edinburgh and with a penchant for strong brew, who choose to opt in or out of that existence at whim —a potentially limitless constituency of people.
To prevent the travellers from encroaching on adjacent sites and other nearby council-owned open spaces, the local council has recently instituted a number of earthworks as barricades, constructed from building waste. Such are the desperate measures now being taken. The barricades are an eyesore, denying residents access to their leisure amenities, and the whole area now resembles something out of the Somme rather than the quiet, friendly Sussex coastal town that it usually is.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 should have been able to deal with all this. Plainly it is failing in this case and in many others throughout the country. Since securing this Adjournment debate I have had calls from my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who are terrorised by similar traveller occupations in their constituencies.
It was right to introduce, in the 1994 Act, measures enabling local authorities to move on travellers and giving the police powers to direct that land be vacated if at least six vehicles were present, even if no criminal activity or damage to the land was involved. Sections 61 and 77 of that Act apparently gave such powers.
However, subsequent court cases, notably those involving Lincolnshire county council and Wealden district authority, as well as cases in the European Court of Human Rights, have largely emasculated those powers, because now, unless a raft of social welfare conditions are
86
taken into account, the local authority risks a legal challenge in the courts. Conditions regarding the education of travellers' children, and housing and social service needs, including statutory duties placed on local authorities under the Children Act 1989 and under the Housing Act 1985, are all used as loopholes to circumnavigate legal action.
Local authorities are now taking months —even years, in this case… to instigate legal proceedings against travellers, for fear that a successful legal challenge will ensue in the courts owing to some loophole. In the meantime, travellers literally dig themselves in deeper, the encampments attract more and more itinerants, the life of the local community is made more and more miserable, and a great deal of council time and resources are taken up by the need to prepare legal cases, to clear up around travellers and, in the case of Adur council, to build defences —fortification works —around the travellers —not to mention the immense cost of the police time involved.
The Government have now actually made matters worse. Despite parliamentary questions tabled by many hon. Members, Ministers continue to insist that powers given to police and local authorities under the 1994 Act are perfectly adequate and that the Government have no plans to change them. A while ago, the Minister for Local Government and Housing tantalised us by promising a research project on the subject, and the Minister for London and Construction today promised us the good practice advice which he launched in October 1998.
However, at that time the Government effectively relaxed restrictions on where new age travellers and gypsies can camp, specifically advising police and local authorities in future to identify acceptable temporary stopping places, and imposing on them a duty to tell travellers under what circumstances they will be allowed to stay on unauthorised sites without being evicted. In practice, this amounts to nothing less than a charter for squatters —an invitation to travellers to occupy first and ask questions later.
This last consideration has been seized upon by travellers at Ropetackle and elsewhere to apply for tenure when occupying derelict council-owned land for which no immediate development plans are in force. Indeed, some of the smarter occupants of the site in Shoreham submitted a formal proposal to Adur district council requesting a short-term licence agreement to stay. In a letter to councillors, the very word processor-proficient organiser of the travellers specifically drew attention to the recently issued Government guidance to local authorities on managing unauthorised camping in support of their claim to remain on the land.
The letter said:
"Toleration can be for a matter of weeks, months or years, depending on the circumstances, and in some cases an authority may decide that eviction action is not necessary at all. Local authorities must weigh the needs of Travellers against any nuisance being caused and have due regard to their statutory duties with regard to the education of and welfare of children."
The letter refers to circular 18/94, which the travellers are using in support of staying on an unauthorised encampment where they are causing merry hell for the indefinable future.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would advise me whether he agrees that an authorised site, wherever it is, should therefore be used by those travellers.
Mr. Loughton: There is scope for using authorised sites. There may be a lack of authorised sites in some cases; that is an entirely different matter, and the hon. Gentleman, who represents a neighbouring constituency, well knows the problems. His own council has been confronted by enormous difficulties in disposing of travellers. I shall mention that a little later, if he will bear with me.
There is evidence to suggest that centrally organised traveller groups are specifically targeting council-owned derelict land for their illegal encampments, now making it easier for them, as the Minister put it in an Adjournment debate,
"to use every ruse to prolong their stay on a totally unsuitable site."— [Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 376.]
Certainly an unusually large quantity of these travellers seem to have had some advice bordering on training from a co-operative establishment in the Tunbridge Wells area.
In our legal system, a defendant is innocent until proved guilty. In current practice, though, it appears that the unwitting victim of traveller occupation —be it a local authority or private landowner —must bear the burden of proof in order to refute the charge that they have no formal plan for use of their land. It is almost as though to snatch and occupy confers a right of tenure on the traveller until the owner negotiates a lengthy and costly series of legal hoops to prove otherwise. That cannot be right, and was certainly not what the 1994 Act was intended to achieve.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—who has joined us and is now sitting on the Front Bench —in an Adjournment debate that he initiated on this subject last year argued that the 1994 Act could be used more often than it is. Specifically, he contended that the police can take direct action against trespassing travellers without the need for additional legal proceedings. That is as it may be, but it is simply not happening. The Government need to consider further legislation to define and streamline local authorities' powers more clearly.
I am no lawyer, and the Government need to produce detailed proposals of their own. However, as long ago as November 1997, I did ask the Minister to consider amending section 77(3)(b) of the 1994 Act to make it a criminal offence for travellers, having been evicted, to return to any land in the same district within three months. That would help to prevent the farce of travellers who have been taken off a site nipping across the road to another site and setting up another encampment —which starts the legal clock running again.
I also asked whether the Minister would consider amending the 1994 Act to enable agents acting for local authorities to confiscate property belonging to travellers subject to eviction orders, as compensation for damage done to public land and legal costs incurred in securing convictions. Currently there is no practical redress for all the environmental damage, the petty crime and the nuisance factors —the noise, the pollution and the human waste. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I had all-night bonfires in our garden, had loud music blaring out at
88
3 am, or decided to strew our waste across the pavement or the public highway, the local authority or the police would be down on us like a ton of bricks, and we should rightly be carted off and prosecuted if we did not comply; but it is just not happening.
Even if local authorities can discover who did it, there are few practical means of pursuing the matter through the courts. I think that it is necessary, therefore, to have general powers of confiscation over entire camps without having to prove which individual caused the most noise or dumped the most rubbish on the public highway. There is also scope to use the lever of social security benefits to secure more considerate and compliant behaviour on the part of the travellers drawing on those benefits. I would like to see greater use made of public order offence legislation at the outset, before an encampment escalates. That is another possible avenue for the Government to explore.
The system needs to be streamlined and the relevant legal processes need to be fast-tracked. The Government need to take a lead, and I fear that at present they are abdicating responsibility for doing so. There are other measures that the Government could take with regard to planning law —for example, making unauthorised development an immediately punishable offence. It is a common practice of certain unsavoury characters, including travellers —this happens in my constituency —to take over an area of agricultural land, either unlawfully or on a short lease, and to turn a green-field site into a breaker's yard of scrap vehicles, some of which they occupy while they provide them with a living, with the maximum disruption and annoyance caused to those living in residential areas nearby.
The Government could address these problems. The deterrent effect of immediate court action would give the police faster powers and serve in no small part to restore some public credibility to the planning system.
In desperation, my constituents have written to the main party leaders and to the Liberal Democrats. They have written to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. The reply from the Home Office stated that if the current legislation is not working, the Government will look closely at changing the law. It is clear that the law is not working. It is not working in Shoreham, nor is it working in Rutland and Melton, Runnymede and Weybridge, Wells and in many other constituencies throughout the country. It is clear that the Government need to act. Much could be done before the introduction of new legislation or amendment to the 1994 Act.
I invite the Minister to admit that that is the position and to give my constituents and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members some comfort by making it clear that the existing highly unacceptable state of affairs will be addressed as a matter of urgency by the Government.
8.23 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few words to what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) has said. The House will be grateful to him for raising this topic because it affects many Members of this place. It is, as he has so vividly described, a scourge on decent people who find their decent lives interrupted and intruded upon by these so-called travellers.

89
My constituency has proved particularly vulnerable to these people. For months now, on the Leicestershire-Lincolnshire border, near Buckminster and Skillington, an encampment of travellers has caused no end of upset to those who live nearby. Likewise, in Rutland, at Barrowden and Belton, and elsewhere, this situation is a recurring problem. It has caused many difficulties for farmers and villagers going about their lawful business.
If I solve the problem in my constituency by persuading the police to move on the travellers, it is not much of a solution if they merely move on to the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), who has to take on the same problem and find somewhere else to move them on to. They are pretty grubby people. Their dogs terrorise sheep. As my hon. Friend has described, their sanitation is disgusting. They frighten and threaten people in otherwise peaceful villages. They have the gall to drive along country lanes carrying, on the back of lorries, hydraulic equipment that is designed for no other purpose than to rip up fence posts so that they can invade private property and pitch their tents, as it were, where they should not.
We are not talking about folksy gypsy types. They are revolting vagabonds who seem to give nothing to society and demand everything from it. They stay for weeks, even months, and are very intimidating to the communities that they invade.
It is clear that they know how to use the law. They are not stumbling and bumbling their way from one village to another. They know exactly what to do to get round the law so that they can stay put. It seems that the police do not enforce the powers that they have, or are reluctant to do so. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us what guidelines and clear instructions he might have given to the police to ensure that where the law exists it is properly enforced.
Knowing the law as they do, these so-called travellers know how to get social services wrapped round their little finger so that they cannot have an enforcement order put upon them. They simply claim that one little child has a snuffly nose and that there is thus a social services duty that stops them being moved on.
Perhaps the Minister will tell the House the status of social security payments to such people. What is the law governing the compulsory provision of water through standpipes by the local authority? Will the Minister consider the law on congregation? Where there are 10 vehicles, for example, designed for living and illegally parked on private or public property, causing a nuisance around them, perhaps the law can be strengthened so that the police have power to move them on.
This is a continuing problem. The way the law is being implemented, if not the law itself, seems inadequate to solve the legitimate concerns of people in my constituency, as in many others. I hope that the Minister can give me some satisfaction in his response this evening.
8.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I start by congratulating the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on securing a debate on unauthorised camping, which is
90
clearly an issue of major concern in his constituency, as it is in many others, including that of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
We do not underestimate what a nuisance such encampments can be, particularly when they involve many travellers, as I understand is the case at the Ropetackle site. I hope that after he has heard my response, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will be reassured that the Government take the issue seriously, and that he will recognise our efforts to ensure that local authorities and the police have effective joint policies in place to deal with unauthorised camping. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, contrary to what he claims, the Government have not by any means abrogated responsibility for this issue. We have taken action and we have been diligent in pursuing policies to try to ensure that there are effective provisions in place to deal with what everyone recognises is a serious problem that requires a serious and thorough response.
I understand that Adur district council has been working in partnership with the newly formed South East regional development agency — SERDA —on proposals for the development of the Ropetackle site. The development of community facilities, housing and leisure facilities, in accordance with the views of local people in Shoreham, is a positive and much needed step forward for the site, which I understand has been in a poor and partially derelict condition for some 25 years, its only recent uses being as a council depot and sewage pumping station. No one can be satisfied that the site was left in such a state for such a long time, and I am delighted to know that there are now proposals to bring it into use.
The regional development agencies have a key role in promoting sustainable development and addressing the needs of social and physical regeneration in the regions. It is clear that the fruits of that partnership, which was initiated, as we heard, under English Partnerships, before SERDA came into existence, are coming together in a positive way. I am delighted that SERDA is taking such a proactive role in the regeneration of that run-down area. I can well imagine the frustration and anger that have been generated in the locality by the continued trespass of a large number of travellers on such an important site.
It is precisely because of concern expressed by local authorities about how they deal with such encampments that my Department, working with the Home Office, produced joint good practice guidance for local authorities and the police to manage unauthorised camping. The good practice, which is based largely on research carried out for our Department by the university of Birmingham, draws on the real, often hard won, experience of local authorities and police forces in managing such issues in various parts of the country.
We published the good practice last October, after consulting a wide range of interested groups, including local authorities, gypsy and traveller representatives and land-owning bodies. The good practice has been welcomed as a positive and innovative step in managing what can be a highly emotive issue locally.
We have considered carefully whether we should amend the existing local authority powers in sections 77 to 79 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with unauthorised camping, and we have concluded that that would be counter-productive. There

91
are no obvious, easy solutions to unauthorised camping and no short cuts. If there were, they would have been found long before now.
Recent case law has confirmed that local authorities must balance the nuisance caused by an encampment against the needs of the campers concerned. Local authorities that do not adopt such an approach are likely to find their actions challenged successfully in the courts. Consequently, we have no plans to make changes to the 1994 Act powers or to make unauthorised camping a criminal offence. To do so could well bring the UK Government into conflict with both the domestic and the European courts.
Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he say specifically why he is not prepared to amend the 1994 Act with regard to successfully evicted travellers who return to the same district? It has happened in my constituency and, I am sure, in many others, that an eviction order is at last successfully executed, yet the same travellers turn up a few hundred yards down the road on an alternative site, and the whole process has to start again.
Mr. Raynsford: I accept that that problem can arise, but the powers do not prevent the local authority from taking further action on a second site, nor do they prevent the police, who have powers under section 61, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, from taking action where there is a nuisance. Powers exist, and the correct question is how they are used to ensure the outcome that we all regard as necessary. We do not wish to encourage local authorities to act in a way that would bring them into conflict with the courts in this country and possibly the European courts. That would be counter-productive, for the reasons that I have given.
Mr. Edward Gamier rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. May I make it clear that there is no activity from the Opposition Front Bench during an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Gamier: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a rapid move from the Front Bench to the Back Bench. On this occasion I shall give way to him, because I know that as a constituency Member he has taken an interest in the subject and has had an Adjournment debate on it.
Mr. Gamier: I am grateful for the Minister's forbearance. The Conservative party is moving all over the place at present. The Minister kindly acknowledged my contribution to the debates in the House in July 1997. Much of what he is now saying I heard in July 1997 at about 10.22 pm. He referred a few moments ago to the correct question, but he did not go on to answer it. Will he now answer his own correct question?
Mr. Raynsford: I am trying to do that, but as the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, I have a little progress to make. This evening's debate began almost half an hour ago, and I hope that we will complete it slightly earlier than 10.22 pm.
We believe that in a properly inclusive society, people who legitimately wish to adopt a travelling life style should be free to do so. However, the right to adopt such a life style does not bring with it licence. It brings with it responsibilities towards the settled community. We recognise that there are occasions when it is simply not possible for travellers' presence to be tolerated because they do not accept those responsibilities and do not behave in a way that is compatible with the normal decencies of civilised life, which all of us wish to uphold. From everything that has been said, I am well aware that that is an issue in Shoreham.
The concept of toleration in the context of unauthorised camping has caused some controversy and has wrongly been interpreted as meaning that the Government want local authorities to tolerate the anti-social and sometimes criminal behaviour that can accompany some unauthorised encampments. That is emphatically not what we mean by toleration. Nor is toleration something that was invented for the good practice guidance.
Government advice to local authorities has, for many years, advocated that gypsies who are camped on council land and who are not causing a nuisance should be tolerated wherever possible. Providing basic facilities such as skips, drinking water and toilets may minimise nuisance. Forced eviction, on the other hand, could result in campers moving to a more unsuitable site, whether on public or private land. That is particularly true in those areas where there is little or no site provision and thus nowhere where gypsies could camp with permission.
The good practice guidance simply reflects what has been found to be successful, through detailed examination of the way that local authorities deal with unauthorised camping. Toleration can be a pragmatic option for dealing with a short-term encampment, particularly where the level of nuisance is low or non-existent. That does not imply toleration of people who are behaving anti-socially and causing nuisance. Gypsies or travellers who indulge in anti-social or even criminal behaviour are not above the law; they are subject to exactly the same penalties as anyone in the settled community.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and the police to develop local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and to work together to reduce particular problems of crime and disorder in their areas. If anti-social or criminal behaviour associated with unauthorised encampments has been identified, we would expect local crime and disorder reduction strategies to encompass measures to deal with it.
Turning to the particular encampment described by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, I understand that a hearing has been fixed in the High Court for Tuesday 18 May to consider the council's application for repossession of the land. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to express any view on the actions taken by the council in this instance, but, in advance of the court hearing, I find it difficult to accept his claim that the 1994 Act is not working.

93
I understand that the fact of the case, as set out by the council in a series of news releases, is that it gave notice to the travellers camped on the Ropetackle site that it would take legal action to evict them if they did not leave the site within seven days. The travellers did not leave, and the council commenced proceedings in the High Court to regain possession of its land shortly after those seven days expired. The case will be heard on 18 May, within a month of the action being initiated.
Mr. Loughton: Of course the facts that the Minister describes are absolutely right, but the bottom line is that it has taken 17 months to initiate that legal action—17 months of misery, anxiety and disruption for my constituents. Does he think it acceptable for such a period to elapse before the legislation should start to come into play, as is the case here?
Mr. Raynsford: I do not know why the local authority did not take action earlier. I am not commenting, and I am not saying that it should or should not have taken action. All I know is that the council's notice to the travellers saying that it would take legal action if they did not leave within seven days was issued on 14 April and its initiation of possession proceedings was announced in a press release on 23 April.
I do not know why action was not taken earlier by the council or why the site was allowed to remain derelict for 25 years. Those are issues on which other people will have to find answers. All I would say is that, in advance of the possession proceedings, which are due to be heard on 18 May, it would be premature to say that the legislation is not working.
I further understand that Adur district council has been working in partnership with the Sussex police on this issue and that the police have used their discretionary powers under section 61 of the 1994 Act, to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred, to evict travellers from privately owned land adjacent to the Ropetackle site.
Regular liaison between the police and local authorities and the development of joint protocols clearly setting out respective roles and responsibilities are key messages in our joint practice guidance. The police are obviously key stakeholders in any local strategy for managing unauthorised camping because of their role in the prevention and detection of crime and in maintaining public order. It is vital that local authorities and the police have a clear idea of each other's roles and responsibilities and that they work together to find a solution that suits the particular circumstances of each encampment. That avoids the potential for confusion and for frustration on the part of local residents who may feel that nothing is being done. It also avoids the potential risk of inappropriate action being taken because a blanket approach is being adopted, which may be appropriate in one case but not in another.
Mr. Duncan: The Minister keeps referring to the good practice guidelines, almost as though his guidelines supersede the law. Does he agree that if the law allows the police to take action, that action should be taken, not just permitted to be taken?
Mr. Raynsford: I would not wish to take away from the police operational responsibility for deciding when it
94
is appropriate to take that action. It would be inappropriate for Ministers to try to interfere in that way. What I do believe is that it is right that the police should have the powers to take action where they believe that it is appropriate, and that the police should be in close liaison with local authorities to establish the protocols that I have described governing how they will respond in difference circumstances. If there is that understanding, it is possible for both the police and local authorities to respond quickly, to give clear messages to reassure local residents, and to avoid confusion about who is using the available powers, how they are proceeding and any other relevant matters that need to be covered. As I said, regular liaison between the police and local authorities is vital if the policy is to work successfully.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office is hosting a series of regional seminars, primarily for police and local authority representatives, which are aimed at promoting better joint working between the police and local authorities in managing unauthorised camping, particularly where criminal or anti-social behaviour is associated with the encampment. He has made it clear that he expects police powers to remove trespassers to be used at an early stage, where necessary. I hope that that gives the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton the reassurance that he seeks. We are clear that the police should use their powers where they consider it appropriate to do so.
It is for local authorities, working with all the relevant agencies, including the police, to develop policies for managing unauthorised camping which best suit local circumstances. In doing so, they will be taking into account existing circular advice, case law and the joint DETR-Home Office good practice guidance. Local authorities need to ensure that they can convince the courts that eviction is necessary and justified, given the circumstances of each case. We want all local authorities to take a fresh look at their policies on unauthorised camping in the light of the good practice guidance, and I hope that Adur district council is taking that opportunity.
Eviction of a large number of travellers inevitably raises the question of where they will go when they are evicted. I have much sympathy with local authorities that are faced with such large encampments, which can cause awful problems for local people. It would clearly be unrealistic to expect individual local authorities to be able to offer suitable authorised accommodation to so many people on a long-term basis, although our good practice guidance encourages local authorities to be receptive to the idea of providing sites for travellers, perhaps on council land, where that is feasible and in accordance with local needs. As I said earlier, site provision should be part and parcel of a local authority's overall strategy for managing unauthorised camping.
I appreciate that the provision of sites for travellers is a difficult issue for local authorities to deal with, and that it requires a tremendous level of local political will to get proposals agreed. However, it can be done. I understand that Brighton and Hove council, for example, recently started work on a site for travellers at Horsdean, in line with the advice in our good practice guidance. My Department's circular 1/94 entitled "Gypsy Sites and Planning" makes it clear that local authorities should include policies in their development plans which meet the accommodation needs of gypsies in their areas. It was therefore disappointing to discover that the Adur district plan specifically states that the provision of further sites will not be permitted.

95
[Mr. Raynsford]
Nothing in the circular prevents local authorities that have identified a need for sites for other travellers from looking sympathetically at such proposals, and considering whether site provision would be a more pragmatic option than eviction. Brighton and Hove council appears to have done just that.
I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham feels able to reassure his constituents that the Government take this problem very seriously, that we are committed to ensuring that unauthorised camping can and will be dealt with effectively and sensitively, in line with good practice, and that we are determined that anti-social or criminal behaviour by travellers, or by anyone else, will not be tolerated.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton raised several other issues. He asked whether there were different rules relating to social security benefits. As I did not have notice of his questions, I hope that he will appreciate that I shall have to write to him on those issues to ensure that he has a full and thorough answer. I also hope that he recognises our determination to ensure that people who cause a nuisance to others and whose behaviour is unacceptable do not enjoy the benefit of the tolerance of the agencies of society that ensure that the law is enforced, whoever is involved. Whether they be travellers or members of the settled community, the law applies to all of them. I hope that these policies will work, will continue to be used and will ensure an effective outcome—
Mr. Gamier rose—
Mr. Raynsford: I hesitate, because I was about to finish my speech. I shall resist the good practice guidance that tells me I should sit down, and I shall give way briefly and finally to the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. Gamier: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I simply want to draw his attention to the fact that, even under the Labour Government, good things have happened. He and his Home Office colleagues may wish to consider the anti-social behaviour orders in this context.
Mr. Raynsford: I endorse that point. We introduced the concept of anti-social behaviour orders as a means of tackling these problems. We want the police and local authorities to work together. I hope that in Adur district and in other areas, the police and local authorities will consider how to use those powers as an additional weapon. It is not their only weapon, and I have no doubt that Adur district council had good reason for deciding on its course of action. I cannot say more, as the matter is due to be considered in the courts. Anti-social behaviour orders have an important role among the armoury of weapons available for tackling anti-social behaviour, and I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman made that point.
We have thoroughly gone through this difficult and controversial issue, which causes a disproportionate amount of anxiety to many people. We must provide policies that achieve a proper balance between effective action to tackle nuisance and a respect for the rights of individuals. People are entitled to a life style that involves movement from one area to another rather than being settled in one area. However, that is no excuse for anti-social behaviour: we will have no truck with that. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the Government are determined to put effective policies in place to deal with this problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Nine o'clock.