Lords Sitting of 8 May 1987

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Civil Defence Regulations: PPI
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether all the local authorities required to do so under the planned programme for implementation have submitted their plans under the Civil Defence Regulations 1983.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the PPI is a rolling three-year programme setting a series of monitoring targets for all the requirements of the 1983 regulations. The first target date in respect of plans is 1st October this year. All the initial PPI meetings with individual county authorities have been completed satisfactorily.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that unexpectedly encouraging reply. Is he aware that some local authorities, ignoring Chernobyl, persist in declaring themselves nuclear-free zones, are irresponsibly breaking the law and are failing to prepare the civil defence plans which they are required to prepare? What do the Government propose to do about such authorities?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not aware that any of those so-called nuclear-free authorities are refusing to meet their statutory obligations. As I said, monitoring the planned programme for implementation will help to ensure that all local authorities fulfil their responsibilities.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a local authority which makes it clear that there is no such thing as civil defence against nuclear war is merely telling the truth?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, if some of the policies of noble Lords opposite were followed, civil defence might be our only defence.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what part the civil defence co-ordinator has played in this programme? He may recall that the co-ordinator was appointed in 1981. At that time he was said to be preparing a review. What progress has been made? Has the co-ordinator been visiting the local authorities?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, a report on local authorities' preparedness was made available last July. A copy is in the Library of your Lordships' House. It makes it clear that despite encouraging progress in many areas a great deal remains to be done.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it the case that the co-ordinator was responsible? Is he still in situ and doing his work? Will the Minister say what backup, assistance and staff he has?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, no. I think that is another main Question. I shall look into the matter and reply to the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is not another Question.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are 173 nuclear-free zones, including places such as Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford and Southampton? In view of the recent local election results, would it not be an extremely good plan to remind those authorities now of the duties which will be required of them this coming October?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, officials have now held meetings with all county-level authorities in England and Wales. They have discussed their work for the coming year. We have been encouraged by their constructive approach. We believe that we have laid a more solid foundation for rapid and consistent progress in the future.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of these exchanges, can the noble Lord clear up some confusion about nuclear-free zones? Is it not true that a nuclear-free zone in the usually accepted sense of the phrase means an area in which there are no nuclear weapons stock-piled, stored or deployed? As that can scarcely be the business of local authorities, would it not be more accurate to say that they are zones free of protection against nuclear attack?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, yes. I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in the event of a nuclear weapon dropping in the middle of a large or small town in Great Britain, what are the instructions for civil defence?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the plans are those now being implemented with the local authorities.

Civil Defence Volunteers
11.10 a.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, on the basis of the plans so far submitted under the planned programme for implementation, they are satisfied with the performance of local authorities in recruiting and training volunteers.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, much more undoubtedly needs to be done by most local authorities in accepting and training civil defence

353
volunteers. The planned programme for implemention suggests that initial priority should be given to the completion of detailed operational plans. But as the programme develops we shall be giving increasing attention to the role of volunteers.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that much more realistic reply. Does he agree that those plans cannot be implemented without the help of a large number of volunteers, that some counties have hundreds of them and that other local authorities have none or too few? What steps will be taken to remind those local authorities which are failing to recruit and train volunteers, as they have a duty to do?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, there is a wide variation. One county had over 2,000 community-based volunteers and 20 counties had none. However, there was a total nationally of over 18,000 volunteers, and only three counties had no volunteer activity. Under the PP1 naturally we are progressing the volunteer question but, as I said, we are addressing other priorities first.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that civil defence volunteers are chiefly to be found in rural areas and that there are hardly any in urban areas?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I do not think that that pattern has been established.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend is aware of the publication Protection from Radiation which is issued by the West Sussex County Council and which applies to urban as well as rural areas? Is he aware that many of us have volunteered and that we have been to Chichester on an assessment of residential buildings course for protection against radiation? It envisaged a truly horrendous scene, in our case a one megatonne bomb on Portsmouth and another on Gatwick. Can my noble friend tell us how many other county councils are as well prepared as West Sussex?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I cannot of course this morning give exact figures on such matters, but I am pleased to hear about the preparations in West Sussex in which the noble Viscount has been involved.

Nuclear Weapons Release: Consultation
11.13 a.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before deciding to launch nuclear weapons, the Prime Minister would consult the Queen.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, it has been the practice of successive governments not to discuss arrangements
354
for nuclear weapons release, nor to answer questions directly or indirectly about the position of the monarch.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Viscount give the House an assurance that the Prime Minister is at least as likely to consult the Queen as to consult the United States Administration?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, as I made clear in my original Answer, both these matters are confidential. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot give any assurance one way or the other.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Viscount recognises the difficulties arising from this Question. However, can I have an assurance that whatever happens regarding the discharge of these terrifying weapons, we shall not—I repeat, not—consult the noble Lord, Lord Kennet?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, that would not be a matter for me.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that as the matter rests in the hands of the President of the United States of America, in reality the Government are unlikely to have any opportunity to consult anyone?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord will not tempt me to depart from my original Answer. As these matters are confidential, I do not wish to say anything one way or the other.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a nuclear war is the least likely of all the hazards of peace and war for which we should be prepared? Experience over the last 40 years has shown that more realistically we should be ready for the possibility—I put it no higher—of a conventional conflict.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I must not be tempted to break the rules which it is my duty to your Lordships to help the House to follow. That duty is not to answer questions which do not arise directly from the Question on the Order Paper. Having said that, I agree entirely with my noble friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Viscount the Leader of the House confirm—it could not be revealing any confidentiality—that there is an arrangement, acknowledged by the Prime Minister, under which very close liaison exists with United States' personnel in this country relating to the release of nuclear weapons? That is a fact; and there need not be too much alarm.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, that may all be very well, but I have answered the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not unusual to involve the name of the monarch in a Starred Question on a controversial issue?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I simply did what I believed was my duty to your Lordships. I replied to a Question that had been put down on the Order Paper and therefore had to be answered.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Viscount talks about confidentiality. There is nothing confidential about the fact that the President of the United States is commander-in-chief of all American forces. To the extent that those forces are linked with nuclear weapons in this country, is it not a fact, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins has pointed out, that the Prime Minister is constitutionally bound by agreement to consult with the President of the United States before there is any question of British nuclear weapons being used? Is that not a public rather than a confidential fact?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, whether it is a confidential or non-confidential fact, it does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us can see no point in these kinds of mischievous Questions appearing on the Order Paper?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, however that may be, if they appear, it is my duty to your Lordships to answer them.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, if the noble Viscount agrees with his noble friend Lord Renton that nuclear war is highly unlikely, and even impossible, what is the point of organising civil defences against such an eventuality?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I have to abide by the rules which the House has laid down on all of us and say that that question simply does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
11.18 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a second time. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill that we have before us this morning is the first thorough revision of the emergency legislation since 1975. The 1978 Act was purely a consolidation measure. In bringing forward this legislation, the Government's aim is to ensure that the security forces have adequate powers to enable them to carry out their onerous and dangerous job of protecting the community in Northern Ireland from the threat of terrorism, while at the same time attempting to achieve the fairest possible system of justice in a situation where, sadly, terrorism prevents the operation of the normal system of justice which we should all like to see. In framing the legislation the Government were guided by the report of the late Sir George Baker on the operation of the 1978 Act.
356
The Bill will strengthen the hands of the security forces by cracking down on paramilitary extortion rackets which masquerade as private security businesses; by creating new offences concerning proscribed organisations and the collection of information useful to terrorists; and by allowing longer periods of remand in scheduled cases. The Bill will extend the statutory rights of persons accused or suspected of terrorist crime by changing the law on bail, and on the admissibility of confession evidence, requiring reasonable grounds for suspicion before certain emergency powers can be exercised, and putting on a statutory basis the rights of terrorist suspects in police custody. Other provisions should help reduce delays in bringing scheduled cases to trial.
I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I briefly set out the purpose of the various provisions in the Bill. Clause 1 reverses the onus of proof in bail applications involving scheduled offences so that it now rests on the prosecution rather than the defence. It also clarifies the position concerning the power of a magistrate to grant bail into military or police custody to members of the security forces charged with a scheduled offence.
Clause 2 enables a magistrates' court to remand a person charged with a scheduled offence in custody for up to 28 days, thus reducing pressure on court resources and reducing demand for policemen to escort remand prisoners. Clause 3, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to set time limits on preliminary proceedings in scheduled cases, and Clause 4, which enables the Lord Chancellor to direct that a particular trial of a scheduled offence be held elsewhere than at Belfast, are both intended to help reduce delays in bringing such cases to trial.
Clause 5 provides that a statement made by an accused shall be inadmissible if there is evidence that it was obtained by the use or the threat of violence. It also declares that the judge has a discretion to exclude statements in the interest of fairness to the accused or in the interests of justice.
Clause 6 in effect abolishes the power of arrest under Section 11 of the 1978 Act. Your Lordships will be aware that this enabled a member of the RUC to arrest without warrant any person whom he suspected of being a terrorist, and to detain that person for up to 72 hours. Sir George Baker commented on the overlap which arose in Northern Ireland between this power and the UK-wide police arrest power conferred by Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. He also commented on the confusion which this could generate.
The Government's response has been to propose the repeal of the police arrest power in the 1978 Act, leaving the RUC to rely on Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act as the main emergency arrest power in Northern Ireland. Under that section the RUC may still arrest persons without warrant but they must have reasonable grounds to suspect—that is an interesting rider—that such persons have been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorist acts, or are in breach of an exclusion order, or have committed an offence under the Act. Another difference is that the maximum length of time for which the RUC may on its own authority detain a person following an arrest under Section 12 of the

357
1984 Act is only 48 hours, though that period can be extended by the Secretary of State for a period or periods not exceeding five days. The power of a constable to enter and search premises for the purposes of making an arrest of a suspected terrorist—which had featured in Section 11 of the 1978—is, however, preserved by Clause 6.
Clause 7 reflects developments in the technology available to terrorists by extending the powers of search and seizure under Section 15 of the 1978 Act to cover such things as scanning receivers as well as transmitters. Clause 8 confers on the Secretary of State a power to authorise the closure and continued closure of highways. As your Lordships will be aware, many border roads in Northern Ireland are closed under the authority of a general order made by the Stormont Minister for Home Affairs in 1970. In view of the political, economic and social consequences of road closures, the Government believe it right that all closures should have the specific authority of the Secretary of State.
Clause 9 amends Section 21 of the 1978 Act by creating offences concerning meetings in support of proscribed organisations; such offences already exist in Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Clause 10 amends Section 22 of the 1978 Act, which makes it an offence to collect information likely to be useful to terrorists about members of the security forces and the prison service, holders of a judicial office and officers of the courts. The clause extends this protection to former members of any of these categories. As originally drafted, the clause would also have included elected representatives, but it was amended in another place after two of the honourable Members most closely concerned unselfishly objected to being singled out for protection in this way.
Clause 11 amends Section 25 of the 1978 Act to bring the offences concerning dress and behaviour indicating membership of or support for a proscribed organisation into line with the equivalent offence in Great Britain. Clause 12 improves the arrangements for compensation for damage caused by actions carried out under the Act.
Clause 13 makes the 1978 temporary provisions Act renewable annually, rather than every six months, and provides for the whole Act to be repealed after five years. This reflects the Government's view that the emergency legislation should not remain in force longer than necessary.
We then gravitate to Part II of the Bill, which puts on a statutory basis the rights of a person in police custody under the terrorism provisions to have someone informed of his location and to have access to a solicitor. It specifies the circumstances in which the exercise of these rights may be delayed. The provisions are broadly comparable to Sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as they apply to terrorist suspects in England and Wales.
Part III provides for a new regulatory scheme for the private security industry in Northern Ireland. This does not detract from the Government's general view that the security industry should be self-regulating, but in Northern Ireland there is a particular problem which requires legislation. Paramilitary organizations
358
are known to use some security firms as a front for extortion and intimidation. The Bill tackles this menace by making it an offence to provide or offer security services without a certificate from the Secretary of State.
Many people have argued that the Bill does not go far enough towards dismantling the emergency legislation. In the view of the Government the continuing security situation remains sufficiently serious to justify exceptional measures. The events of the past few weeks have—sadly and starkly—supported this view. The emergency legislation which applies in Northern Ireland must strike a balance between protecting the individual rights of persons suspected or accused of involvement in terrorism and enabling the security forces and, let us not forget, the courts to deal effectively with terrorism, in the interests of protecting the whole community.
It is a difficult balance to strike, but this Bill has provided an opportunity for Parliament to consider the emergency legislation and to adjust the balance slightly in a number of areas. The Government believe that the Bill as amended in another place strikes the right balance. We were encouraged by the constructive spirit in which the Bill was debated in the other place, and I look forward to equally interesting and useful debates during your Lordships' consideration of the Bill. With that, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lyell)
11.29 a.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should say at the outset that we welcome this important and long overdue Bill, although we are sad that there is a need for it. A Bill relating to the affairs of Northern Ireland makes a very rare appearance indeed in your Lordships' House. In the lifetime of the present Parliament this is the only Northern Ireland Bill to have come before it. That is not to say that there has been no legislation relating to Northern Ireland. In the past 12 months about a dozen Orders in Council made their contribution to the life of the Province, dealing with such important matters as education, local government, social need, mental health and public order; but Orders in Council, as has so often been observed in your Lordships' House, cannot be and have not been amended.
It may strike some people as odd that this Bill, which has taken such a long time to reach this Chamber, may yet be denied a Committee stage in your Lordships' House. We on these Benches have no brief for violence in order to achieve political ends. In the present bleak circumstances in Northern Ireland we have no choice but to support the continuance of emergency provisions for the Province. Emergency legislation of some kind or another will be necessary so long as the problems posed by the paramilitary bodies cannot be defeated. Regrettably, the fact remains that hardly a week goes by without weighty evidence to show that the paramilitary forces have not as yet been defeated. Indeed, there is evidence that their campaign may currently be escalating.
Parliament is always reminded, as it was reminded by the Minister this morning, that when it considers

359
this kind of legislation it has throughout to try to strike a balance between the maintenance of civil liberties and the protection of the community from acts of violence. Most of us assent to the philosophy of the balance, at least in abstract terms, but there are one or two difficulties with this concept. First, how do we know whether we are achieving the correct balance in practice? Secondly, the concept itself implies the erosion of civil rights which in turn may be counterproductive because it undermines public confidence in the legal system. There is that difficulty about the concept of balance.
Last November, in a notable speech to the Institute of Foreign Relations in Munich, Mr. Nicholas Scott, for whom we on these Benches have great respect, reflected publicly on the lessons the Government have learnt in the course of the sustained disorder in the Province. Mr. Scott said:
"I believe democracies have to be careful in seeking to defend their democracy by not adopting means which play into the hands of the terrorists, and therefore I think we should seek to derogate as little as possible from the normal standards of justice and government which we would normally apply".
It is therefore right that there should be an independent review of the emergency legislation periodically; indeed, possibly annually.
Four years ago, the late Sir George Baker, on the initiative of the Government, considered carefully how the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 was working out on the assumption that temporary powers were necessary. Sir George completed his review and reported within a year. That was the last time there was a review of this legislation. His report contained 74 recommendations. I think it is generally agreed that he did not recommend any radical departure from the provisions of the 1978 Act. Some of the recommendations have been implemented by administrative action and a few have been embodied in Orders in Council. This Bill gives effect to a number of the other recommendations, while it also incorporates matters not referred to in the report.
According to the information I have received from the office of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, it seems that when this Bill becomes part of the law of Northern Ireland about 60 of the 74 recommendations will have been implemented. I think it would be helpful to those who are concerned with the impact of emergency legislation if a list of the Baker recommendations which have been accepted by the Government were to be placed in the Library of the House. I shall refer in my speech to the Baker report because it is an authoritative document based on careful and detailed consideration of the evidence, sometimes confidential evidence, which was made available to Sir George.
We welcome Clause 1, which as the Minister has explained transfers from the defence to the prosecution the onus in bail applications of proving why bail should not be granted pending trial. However, the clause does not provide a presumption in favour of bail. We also welcome Clause 6, which repeals the police powers of arrest without warrant contained in Section 11 of the 1978 Act. But as the police will continue to have the power to arrest under
360
Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, can the Minister explain what is the real significance of the repeal of Section 11?
We confess to some unease that the Bill does not repeal the powers of the Secretary of State contained in Section 12 of the 1978 Act to detain a person without trial. Perhaps I may read just a few sentences from paragraph 235 of the Baker report where he discussed the possible repeal of the detention powers. He said:
"The case for the repeal of Section 12 is pressed not only by the various bodies concerned with human rights, as is to be expected, but by many others, including those who have been involved in operating detention. A summary of their experience is that detention never worked and will never work; it is always counterproductive in the end".
Given this authoritative and unqualified view of Sir George Baker, do the Government have a convincing case for retaining this power?
We approve Clause 5, which strengthens the guidance for excluding alleged admissions made by an accused in criminal proceedings for a scheduled offence. The clause adopts the substance of Sir George Baker's suggested draft wording. Henceforth a statement will not be admissible if the accused was subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment—and here the clause follows the wording of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights—or if he was subjected to violence or threat of violence in order to induce him to make a statement. It was strongly argued in another place that a statement should be admissible only if it was made voluntarily, which is the position in England and Wales. Will the Minister explain why the criteria for England and Wales are not being applied in Northern Ireland?
Clause 12 of the Bill deals with the compensation payable to a person whose property is taken, destroyed or damaged by members of the security forces in the course of their duties. There appears to be some uncertainty about the principles which determine the payment of compensation and also about the claims procedures. Claims have to be submitted within 12 months of the date when the damage or destruction occurs, but it may be the case that the damage—for example, damage to the foundations of a building or damage to underground drains—could not be apparent within 12 months of the date of the act which caused the damage.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us what percentage of claims have not been settled within 12 months of their submission to the department. I am told that there is a backlog of cases. If that is right, what is the cause of the delay? I think it is for consideration whether this criticism is justified and whether the principles and procedures of compensation could be clarified or modified, possibly along the lines of the relevant section of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 or the Latent Damage Act 1986.
The Minister has explained that Part II of the Bill brings the law into line with the relevant provisions of Sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This provides a right for a person who is detained under the emergency provisions to have a friend or relative told that he is being detained and where he is being detained. It goes on to provide a right of access to legal advice for the detained person.

361
These provisions were not referred to in the Baker report. But they are decent rights and we very much endorse them. We are particularly pleased that the Government accepted an opposition amendment in the other place that a detained person must be informed of these rights. We note however that the exercise of them can be delayed on many different grounds, and we are mindful that unjustified delay affects the quality of justice.
We approve Part III of the Bill which seeks to choke off one important source of financial support for the paramilitary bodies. It must be the Government's hope that Clauses 17 to 23 will be effective in preventing such organisations from managing protection rackets under the cloak of security services. In practice, it may well be that the effectiveness of Part III of the Bill will depend on the willingness of people to give evidence, and possibly also on the definition of security services.
Turning to Part IV of the Bill, I should like to say how much we welcome Clause 25 and paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 1. The effect of these provisions is to substitute the words "has reasonable grounds to suspect" for the word "suspect" in the context of the powers of arrest and search specified in Schedule 1. But it is still not clear to me why these amendments should be described in the heading of the schedule as "minor amendments", or even as a rider. In each case we believe that the amendment is a helpful step forward.
I wish now to mention three omissions from the Bill. We believe that an important omission is Sir George Baker's recommendation that a prisoner held in custody for over 12 months for a scheduled offence without having been committed for trial should automatically be granted bail without surety. I understand that about 12½ per cent. of the prison population in Northern Ireland are persons awaiting trial, though not necessarily for the scheduled offences. The average period of remand in Northern Ireland for a scheduled offence is 15 months, but in some cases it has been more than two years or even three years. This is clearly unsatisfactory. Many people are greatly troubled about long detention as it can affect the individual and his family.
We acknowledge that Clause 3, which was added at Report stage in another place, goes some way to meet the criticism. This is the clause which allows time limits to be set through regulations by the Secretary of State seeking to ensure that the system operates without undue delay. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House why the Government have rejected this clear recommendation by Sir George Baker. They have therefore failed to provide in the Bill a specified time limit to the period in custody.
There is still much concern that the right to jury trial is not available for the scheduled offences. I accept however that there is a division of opinion on this issue. I, for my part, accept that it is unrealistic to restore jury trial for terrorist offences because of the problems of intimidation of the jurors. But this places on the Government a duty to keep the scheduled offences and the discretion of the Attorney-General to certify cases out of the schedule under constant review.
362
As I understand it, the scheduled offence is a concept essential to the emergency legislation because the purpose of the schedule was to impose non jury trial upon those offences thought to be commonly committed by members of paramilitary bodies.
Many of those who have studied the evidence about those scheduled offences which have come to trial would like more cases to be channelled back into the normal jury system. This has been supported by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. In general, Sir George Baker went along with the advice of the standing commission and recommended that the Attorney-General's discretion to certify cases out of the schedule should be extended.
Among the offences Sir George recommended should be capable of being certified out, where there was no observable connection between the particular case and terrorism, were robbery and aggravated burglary. Again, we appreciate that the Government have gone a considerable way to accept the Baker recommendations in respect of increasing the discretion of the Attorney-General to schedule out. But they have not increased the discretion in respect of these two particular offences where it is known that there is no connection with paramilitary bodies.
The significance of these two offences in this context is to be found in a study carried out by Mr. Desmond Webb who concluded that a substantial number of convictions under the Diplock procedures were related to robbery and aggravated burglary and had no connection with terrorism. It would appear to us that where there is no such connection, then the accused ought to have the benefit of jury trial, and that it ought to be possible for the Attorney-General to certify the offences out of the schedule.
There is one other omission to which I want to refer. As I understand it, there is disappointment among many members of the Catholic community that advantage has not been taken of the new legislation to place some limitation on the right to stop and search the citizen at random. That is to be found, I believe, in Section 15 of the 1978 Act. There is a great deal of evidence which suggests that the power is being abused, and that it is being used too often to harass the citizen.
If that is so, then the citizen has a genuine grievance which should be tackled. When this abuse of power was discussed at Report stage in another place, the Minister of State promised to consider what had been said in favour of placing some limit on the exercise of the power to stop and search at random, but the Government have not produced an amendment. Are we therefore to conclude that they do not consider that there is evidence of real grievance arising out of the exercise of this power?
I have tried to cover some of the main grounds of this important Bill and I have indicated our concern over some omissions. In conclusion, we would emphasise the pretty obvious message that when the Bill becomes part of the law of Northern Ireland it will be of help to the security forces. But the Province will still be faced with the immense task of seeking a political solution to its problems. It must be an earnest hope that the political parties in Northern Ireland, which themselves reflect the divisions in Northern

363
Ireland, will decide that at long last the time has come for them to concentrate on the common goal of restoring peace to their land and to their people, and to work together to that end.
11.50 a.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill. It is not an occasion to seek party political advantage, despite the circumstances in which we may find ourselves next week. I think that the British people can be proud, despite the abuse and criticism poured on them from some quarters in Northern Ireland, that an attempt is still being made in this Bill better to see that justice is clearly and impartially carried out.
We regret that the Bill is necessary but we accept that at present it is. The Bill follows the careful survey of the position by Sir George Baker a little time back. As we are told, the Bill contains provisions which are intended to strengthen the authority's hand in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland while extending the statutory protection given to the rights of persons suspected or accused of terrorism. I hold in contempt extremist leaders of both communities who, despite the agonies experienced. in the Province over the past 17 or 18 years, seem still not to have learnt the first thing about the value of co-operation, conciliation or compassion.
The Bill had a harmonious Third Reading in the other place and we on these Benches support it. There are one or two points where we have criticisms to make and I shall raise these in a brief survey. We regret that Diplock courts are to continue to act under only one judge. For some time we have pressed for there to be three judges as is the case in the Republic. The 12th annual report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (page 59) argues the case fairly. There would not be a better quality of justice, for tribute is paid to the present judiciary, but it would be seen and seem to be fairer. We accept that this would be the best arrangement at present when the possibility of intimidation makes trial by jury unfortunately impossible. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has also touched on this point. We support the fact that a number of categories of cases are to be removed from the schedule lists.
Another cause for concern, not mentioned but relevant to the Bill, is the talk of the reintroduction of internment. We should like our strong opposition to even a remote possibility to be placed on record. The experiences of the early 1970s should surely show that, while a number of known troublemakers may be picked up and taken into custody, it is at the price of arousing a great deal of from the supporting community at home.
We are also concerned, as clearly are the Government, that the time that accused people are held in custody before being brought to trial is far too long, and in many cases it can lead to a feeling of unfair treatment. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned that matter. We welcome the fact that at least some schedule cases will, by the terms of this Bill, be heard other than at Belfast Crown Court, thus reducing the pressure on court accommodation. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies,
364
mentioned, in his report Sir George Baker recommended that persons having been held in custody for 12 months without having been committed to trial should automatically be given bail. The Government do not seem prepared to accept that, and we regret it.
Following Clause 1, we agree that the onus should be on the prosecution to show where bail should not be granted. We support Clause 2. It makes sense that a magistrate should be allowed to remand a person charged with a scheduled offence in custody for 28 days, and not have to have him brought forward every seven days, taking up time and causing inconvenience. Clause 5 deals with the admissibility of evidence. I am surprised that it is still necessary to say that it is inadmissible. I quote from the explanatory memorandum:
"if evidence is adduced that the accused was subjected to violence or the threat of violence".
But of course we support this clause.
Clause 10 extends the categories of person about whom it is unlawful to collect information likely to be useful to terrorists. We note with interest that MPs and Peers were removed from the list as a result of the action of Members in another place. Clause 11 makes it an offence for a person in a public place to dress or to wear, carry or display any article in such a way as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a member of a proscribed organisation. But will it be possible to enforce this against the hooded thug? Turning to Clause 13, it makes sense that temporary provisions of the Act should need to be renewed annually, while the whole Act will be repealed after five years. We support this.
Part II, Clauses 14 to 16, deals with the rights of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Northern Ireland. We accept the need for some restriction on access to legal advice. Part III, Clauses 17 to 21, contains provisions requiring the certification of private security businesses in Northern Ireland. It seeks to make illegal protection rackets run by those who are members or close associates of paramilitary organisations. We certainly support this policy, but how far illegal intimidation can be reduced by this measure is very much open to doubt. It is at least a step in the right direction.
With those brief comments, I repeat that in general we wish the Bill well. I take the opportunity also to repeat that we remain as convinced as ever that the way forward must be progress under the terms of the Anglo-Irish agreement. We hope that after a general election a more positive attitude will be taken by both communities in Northern Ireland.
11.57 a.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for kindly having invited some of us to meet him earlier this week to discuss the provisions of the Bill. I regret that unfortunately I could not be present but I am grateful for the comprehensive brief which his department was good enough to supply.
In my view, and in the view of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, the Bill is generally to be welcomed. However, I add the words "as far as it goes". Noble Lords have quite rightly pointed out that a balance must be achieved and preserved between civil rights on

365
the one hand and the prevention of terrorism and maintenance of law and order on the other. I fully recognise that that is a difficult balance to achieve.
I turn to look at a few of the provisions. Clause 1 appears to bring the law of Northern Ireland into line with the Bail Act 1976, which is effective in England and Wales. That is a perfectly sensible provision. Clause 3 is most important because it has been a grave injustice that on many occasions those who have been apprehended but not yet convicted have had to spend long periods of time on remand in custody awaiting trial. In some cases it has been up to two years. It is worth bearing in mind that two years spent on remand in custody is the equivalent of a four-year jail sentence with 50 per cent. remission. That is quite clearly unjust and I sincerely hope that the Bill before your Lordships' House today will have the effect of drastically reducing these incidents of delay.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to add something? I agree entirely with what he has said. However, there is a feature which arises not only in Northern Ireland but also in this country, although it occurs much more often in Northern Ireland. It is that the accused is happier to be where he is and deliberately delays his case coming to court. My feeling is that any arrangements made ought to make it clear that this kind of thing puts him out of court as regards appealing for an earlier trial.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and I am very interested to hear what he says. In fact when I was elected representative I never received complaints from the family of a prisoner because his trial came forward too soon. It was always the other way round: "My father/brother/son has now been languishing in custody for 18 months and there is still no word of his trial coming up".
As I say, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord said, but I think in this context there is truth in the saying, "Justice delayed is justice denied". It should be the right of all those who are awaiting trial to have justice meted out with the minimum of delay. So this is to be welcomed and is in accordance with Sir George Baker's recommendation. The Secretary of State's discretionary power to deal with extraordinary or unusual circumstances is also provident.
I welcome Clause 2 because before now in your Lordships' House I have had occasion to voice my disquiet about the apparent liberty the paramilitaries have to thumb their noses at the security forces and at the law-abiding population—indeed, they probably offend quite a lot of the mourners as well—by turning up at funerals in paramilitary gear, firing shots over the coffins and so on. I sincerely hope that this clause will eliminate that in future, recognising what a very tricky job the police have in dealing with such sensitive situations.
Part II seems to be based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As such, I think it is consistent and makes sense. Part III is most welcome; indeed, it is long overdue. Reference has been made to the protection rackets that have been enabled to operate as
366
a result of so-called security services. I think also there have been worse things even than that, with so-called security men abusing their position of trust so as to get information about properties they are supposed to be guarding and then passing on that information, which is very useful to people who want to burgle the property.
Having welcomed those clauses, I must ask whether the Bill goes far enough. Many suggestions have been made in the past to the effect that the Diplock courts ought to have three judges presiding rather than one. I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, might have been down to speak before me, because I am sure he knows more about this than I do. One argument against having three judges is that it would put too much pressure on the judiciary, but the noble Lord may be able to throw some light on that argument. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, urged that there should be three judges, and that would be our view as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested that with certain offences of a less serious nature trial by jury might be resumed. This is something that we would welcome where possible. One recognises the difficulties and the risk of jurymen being intimidated. But a move towards normality of that sort and towards justice as we always used to know it in a democratic state would be welcomed if it could be brought about. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, say that this would he in accordance with Sir George Baker's recommendation.
However, having said that any movement towards normality is to be welcomed, I am sorry to have to add that just at the moment one has to concede that Northern Ireland has receded somewhat from normality in the last few months. One of the factors which would make a significant difference and which is not covered in this Bill would be the elimination of the right of silence. That again is the sort of thing that one does not like to have in a democracy, but unfortunately a substantial number of suspected persons who are taken in for interrogation when faced with questioning say absolutely nothing. And that is their right. They can sit there and have questions fired at them, and they can just look at the wall opposite, the floor or the ceiling and say nothing at all.
This makes the job of the police very much more difficult. There might be an argument that in the same way as a suspected drunken driver is guilty of an offence if he declines to give a sample, the suspected terrorist would be guilty of an offence if he declined to answer questions. I know that this is something which is unpleasant and not entirely acceptable in a democratic state.
On the matter of remission, so far as I understand it, if the prisoner keeps his nose clean he gets 50 per cent. remission automatically. This means that even prisoners who have been given what one would normally regard as heavy sentences get back into circulation again fairly soon. There was the example the other day of a gentleman who had bad luck. He had come out of prison after seven and a half years (serving, I think, half of a 15-year sentence) and within a couple of weeks he was once again trying to plant a bomb. Unfortunately for him, it went off in his hands

367
so that he is no more. But the fact that after seven and a half years in prison he was able to get back into active service with the IRA so soon indicates that all is not what it ought to be. I wonder whether 50 per cent. remission is perhaps too freely given and whether there ought to be more strings and more conditions attached.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, expressed his feeling of revulsion at the very thought of any type of internment being reintroduced. I should feel similar revulsion, but I must report to your Lordships that there is a school of thought that the present level of violence is just containable while things remain the way they are and the only way to reduce it is to round up the godfathers—those who do not run the risks themselves or get their hands dirty but who plan and organise the acts of terrorism. Internment of any sort is something against which I argued in the early 1970s and I should be very hesitant to see it happen again now; but perhaps Her Majesty's Government should be aware, if they are not already, that there is a school of informed thought which feels strongly that such a measure should be considered.
Whatever is done in this field will not be effective in the absence of full co-operation with the security forces in the Republic of Ireland. Looking at the tragic murder a short while ago of Lord Justice and Lady Gibson, one wonders whether that co-operation is all that it ought to be. How that car could have been left between the two frontier posts unattended, with a bomb inside, if the security forces on both sides of the border had been acting in full concert and had been fully alert, is difficult to understand.
That leads me to ask what results we have yet seen from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, where cross-border agreement was one of the most significant results that were predicted. Northern Ireland still has on display its "Ulster says 'No"' banners. They are getting a bit bedraggled by now, which is perhaps symptomatic of the campaign itself. I did not say no at the tme when the agreement was debated in your Lordships' House in November 1985. I said, "Yes, but". I said "yes" to the objectives of the agreement, which we would dearly like to see realised. I said "but" to the question of whether it would work. Now, 18 months later, what do we have to show for it? Those who have said no from the start can throw in the faces of people like myself and my colleagues, who said that one should not just shout "no" but wait and see whether it worked, the question, "What can we see 18 months later? What results are there to show for it?". That is a difficult question for us to answer.
I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will find it possible to instil a little more confidence in the mind of the public by letting results be seen. I know that many of the things that take place have to happen behind closed doors for security reasons, but I believe that confidence would be reinforced if results from co-operation between the two police forces could be seen. After 18 months one would expect to see results from two forces which, so we are told, have been working closely together for the previous 14 years.
I welcome the Bill but I wonder whether it goes far enough. Certainly it cannot do any harm but I doubt
368
whether we shall see any noticeable change in the security situation as a result of its provisions. Nonetheless I wish it well.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain how the security forces in the Republic of Ireland could in any way be held responsible for the detonation of the car when that occurred at least half a mile north of the border to which they had escorted Lord Justice Gibson?
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I did not hold the Garda responsible for the detonation. I said that it was very difficult to envisage how the car could have been left there unattended with a bomb inside it if both police forces had been fully co-operating with each other.
I am not apportioning blame to one side compared with the other. I am merely saying that such incidents ought not to happen if the two police forces are closely in touch. In the army we should have called it a rear link between one command and the other so that each would know what the other was doing. That is what I am saying. I can assure the noble Lord that I was not blaming the Garda.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in this debate. He speaks with great authority on the affairs of Northern Ireland, and we always listen to him with great attention. I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and his department, for the briefing on this Bill which they have given us. That was very helpful.
I am sorry that so few noble Lords have put down their names to speak in the debate. It is true that the Government always table debates on Northern Ireland for Fridays or late at night but to some extent the small number of speakers reflects a degree of public indifference in England to the affairs of Northern Ireland, which is symbolised by the dust covers that we see on the television cameras. The Bill is not particularly controversial and I join with the noble Lords who have spoken in giving it a general welcome. I am especially glad that it is proposed to implement a large number of the recommendations in Sir George Baker's admirable report.
As I understand it, one of the objectives of the Bill is to strengthen the authorities' hand in the fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland while at the same time extending the statutory protection given to the rights of persons suspected or accused of terrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has said, and as the Minister told us, this is a difficult balance. However, it seems to me that the most essential right for anyone living in Northern Ireland is to be able to sit in his or her own drawing room or to walk down the street without fear of being shot. They are not enjoying that right at the moment. We need to concentrate on the first objective.
Two days ago in another place the Secretary of State admitted that there had been "a serious deterioration" in security. Indeed, there has. I believe that this year the murder rate is running at 250 per cent. above the same period in 1986. I understand that the Government do not propose to amend this Bill in the

369
light of the present very serious situation. That surprises me a little, unless they plan other measures, in which case perhaps the Minister will inform us of them. If this Bill is lost I hope that in due course we can have a replacement that reflects the need to reverse the deterioration of which the Minister spoke.
I want to say a few words about the general situation against which we have to consider the Bill and particularly about the emergency (if that is the right word) for which emergency provisions are needed. First, there is the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which I think it is fair to describe as the main plank in the Government's policy for fighting terrorism. When he introduced it to this House in November 1985 the noble Viscount the Leader of the House told us that the agreement:
"can contribute significantly to the aim, which we all share, of peace, stability and prosperity in Northern Ireland".
He went on to say:
"it offers a real opportunity to make progress towards reconciliation between the two communities in Northern Ireland and to tackle cross-border terrorism in a determined way."
[Official Report, 26/11/85 cols. 798 and 801.]
On that occasion, I said that as I understand it
"the agreement…seems to be based on a calculation … that if representatives of the Government of the Republic can, through the Conference, put forward views and proposals on their own account or on behalf of the Catholic minority about the most important aspects of policy in Northern Ireland, then nationalists may withdraw support for Sinn Fein and the IRA, so that the terrorists lose their support and the level of terrorism is drastically reduced. …If that really happens then obviously it will be an enormous gain…But will there really be such a dramatic improvement? The prospects seem to me to be far from certain".—[Official Report, 26/11/85; col. 842.]
My doubts then were not widely shared, but I think that now they are. I noticed two pieces in the press recently which your Lordships may also have seen. On 26th April, the Sunday Telegraph said:
"After the murder of Lord Justice Gibson and Lady Gibson, the onus of proof is on those who believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has contributed to cross-border security.
We hope that the Government of the Republic and the Catholic community in the North will not merely express their outrage, but also demonstrate a new-found determination to apprehend the murderers. If not, it will be difficult to argue with Unionist outrage".
And in an important leader on the 28th April, the Independent said:
"There is no indication that the accord has reconciled many Nationalists. It has, however, done much to alienate Protestant opinion".
It went on to say that the argument was often made that in fact there were improvements in security taking place, and that too much publicity would jeopardise recent gains and make it difficult for the new Taoiseach to continue on the path of sweet reasonableness. On that issue they said:
"There comes a point at which such arguments have to be resisted and that point was surely reached this weekend. In order to restore morale and to engender some confidence the two Governments ought, as a matter of urgency, to give public indication of the ways in which co-operation in security matters has been stepped up. Moreover, it would be valuable for Mr. Haughey to give his unreserved public blessing to the higher profile military presence which will now be necessary on the border and elsewhere in Northern Ireland".
I hope that the Government will pay attention to those views and to similar views that have been put forward.
370
As regards the emergency provisions and the measures actually taken to deal with the situation, in the first place, I welcome the steps announced by the Secretary of State two days ago in another place to strengthen the UDR, the RUC and to take measures which have been interpreted as a proposal to send in the SAS. I also welcome that part of the Secretary of State's speech in which he said:
"I make it absolutely clear that our determination is to pursue our efforts until such time as terrorism is destroyed."
However, can that firm and admirable statement be reconciled with what the Government actually do? In the subsequent debate a number of speakers, including the Unionist leader Mr. Molyneaux, talked about the restrictions on the actions of the army which they claimed meant that under the rules and with the yellow card the terrorist must always fire first and that if any of our soldiers shoots first he is liable to prosecution. Mr. Molyneaux quoted an officer in the British Army who said that many of the soldiers there felt like "tethered goats". That seems to me to be an appalling position in which to put our troops. What is the real position? If we are to destroy terrorism, as the Secretary of State says we must, the army must have some of those shackles removed because it cannot destroy terrorism with its hands tied behind its back.
My slight doubts about the Government's will to win were increased by what I read about a case of which I have given the Minister notice which concerns a supply teacher in Northern Ireland called Kathleen Gleeson. That lady was widely reported to be a member of the IRA and to have used her position as a teacher to recruit pupils from her class into the IRA. She has had three convictions, two of them for assaulting the police. However, I noticed an article in The Independent the other day which reported that she had been reinstated. I wish to ask the Minister whether the Government consider that such a person is suitable to teach the children of Northern Ireland.
Indeed what is needed at this time is a firm signal, essentially from the Prime Minister, that enough is enough and that we intend to put a stop to terrorism. I shall give your Lordships a parallel. In Canada in 1970 there was an outbreak of serious terrorism by an organisation called the FLQ in Quebec. Your Lordships may remember that one of our trade commissioners was kidnapped and that a Quebec Minister was kidnapped and subsequently murdered. Many people in Canada thought at that time that the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, being a progressive and very often described as a wet and a strong liberal, would do nothing but wring his hands and that the terrorism would continue. In fact, quite the contrary happened. Mr. Trudeau made it absolutely clear that under no circumstances was his government prepared to put up with the terrorism in Quebec. He brought into force the War Measures Act for the first time in peace-time in Canada. He sent in the tanks, arrested a large number of people and made it absolutely clear to every Canadian, to every member of the Canadian Forces, to everyone in Quebec and to the terrorists that the Government were going to stop the terrorism, and it did stop. That was 17 years ago and there has never been a cheep out of the terrorists since. It was stopped effectively because of the Government's will to stop it.

371
Are we prepared to do likewise? If we are and if we make that determination I imagine that the army would require changes in the legal framework so that there can be no question of prosecuting our soldiers for shooting terrorists in the course of operations. Will we give the army those powers? That matter is far more important than merely increasing the numbers of troops. Will we place some such provisions in this Bill or in its replacement or in any alternative?
There are other steps that we can take at the same time. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, said about the question of the right of silence. We should give consideration to removing that. A short time ago in your Lordships' House there was discussion about the prosecution's right to appeal against excessively lenient sentences in Great Britain, and a number of very distinguished noble Lords, including the Lord Chief Justice, argued that the prosecution should have that right. Whatever happens in Great Britain, it should certainly have that right in Northern Ireland where it is even more important.
The question of detention, or selective detention, is very difficult. Clearly it resulted in damage when it was carried out in a wholesale way. It alienated the minority community, which was clearly a mistake. Nonetheless, we cannot allow the present situation to continue. It is certainly disturbing when we see that the courts in Belfast and Dublin sometimes appear to be competing as to which can release the most terrorists into the arms of their jubilant supporters. We should encourage the Government of the Republic to move in parallel with us in taking strong measures against terrorists.
One other question in relation to the Bill, discussed in Committee in another place on 26th February, was that of the proscription of Sinn Fein. As your Lordships may know, it was proscribed between 1922 and 1974, and the IRA and the INLA remained proscribed. But Sinn Fein, of which the Baker Report quoted from the Daily Telegraph as "the IRA in drag", is not proscribed. That is thoroughly discussed in the Baker Report. I hope that those of your Lordships who have not read it will look at chapter 9, pages 116 to 123, where there is a full and fair discussion of the question. Sir George Baker quoted a suggestion made to him by Professor Wilkinson, of the Department of Politics at Aberdeen University, whom he described as an international authority on terrorism. The suggestion was,
"that those political parties which refuse to renounce the use of violence should be disqualified by statute from fighting parliamentary or other elections".
Sir George added that,
"the proposal seemed well worthy of further thought."
We should pay attention to that because, at the moment, there is an anomalous situation in that Ministers, quite reasonably, will not meet members of Sinn Fein although it is not proscribed and is free to fight parliamentary and local elections.
There is the linked question of terrorist publicity. Your Lordships may have heard "The World This Weekend" on the BBC last Sunday when the question of terrorism in Northern Ireland was discussed. There was a long interview with Mr. Danny Morrison who was treated just as if he was a political leader in the
372
United Kingdom. He described the aims and objectives of the IRA and the progress it had made. That is quite wrong. However, even more wrong was the article which some of your Lordships may have seen which appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday, 5th May. The article quoted,
"a senior figure who said he was speaking for the general headquarters staff".
He described the bomb which killed Lord Justice Gibson and his wife and explained that it contained,
"1,0001bs. of explosives, and not 5001bs. as estimated by the authorities. It was made of fertiliser base burned by cortex high explosive cable to give uniform combustion. The cable was set off by benzine primer".
There were all those details. The article went on to quote the spokesman as saying that,
"the IRA still needed rifles capable of piercing the chest and back armour protection worn by the security forces … The IRA has inadequate guns to penetrate the armour so we have to get in close for head or stomach shots".
It is appalling that a paper with a great past like the Guardian should quote that sort of stuff, which is sickening to read, from a terrorist spokesman. It should be an offence to give publicity to the views of terrorist spokesmen in that way.
To sum up, there ought to be a clear signal that the Government intend that this situation should stop. There should, I believe, be consequent discussion with the security forces. I believe that amendments would be required to legislation, either in this Bill or in an alternative. Clearly, action in the security field is the first priority. But political action is necessary, too.
I think that the Anglo-Irish agreement gave the IRA grounds for thinking that we were giving in to their ultimate objective. We need to make it clear that we are not. To that end, we need to remove the political uncertainty hanging over Northern Ireland. I have already suggested in this House that we should treat the province much more like Wales or Scotland. We should make it clear that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that it will remain so.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I take up one point that he made? He said, if I understood him aright, that he was not sure that the Government had a real will to win. I think that that is an absolutely unjust reflection on the present policy, because the answer to the noble Lord's very understandable complaints about things going wrong the whole time—that has been happening for 20 years in Northern Ireland—is to be tougher and everything will come right.
The curious fact is that the one thing that the terrorists, particularly the INLA, are working for above everything else is to produce a strong reaction. It is the only way that they can develop their case or get friends at all. So it is a good deal more difficult than the noble Lord suggested.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I think I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the great majority of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland never have supported the IRA and still do not. Having said that, I welcome this belated move to implement some of Sir George Baker's recommendations, and it is

373
particularly good that the measure comes to us in the form of a Bill and not of an unamendable order.
I should like to welcome the onus now being put on the prosecution to show why bail should not be granted. I welcome also the time limits regarding preliminary proceedings for scheduled offences. But I ask the Minister when the regulations will be published and whether they will be available to us in draft form. Will the limits be comparable to those now existing in Scotland after which bail must be granted? Here we should also refer to recommendation No. 22 of Sir George Baker's report.
I should like to welcome the limited attempts in this Bill to harmonise its provisions with those of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Much more could be done here, because the overlap of emergency and prevention of terrorism provisions is undesirable in principle and unnecessarily complex in practice. The objective, I suggest, should be for Northern Ireland to have a single Act containing all emergency legislation.
I should also like to welcome the word "reasonable", about which the late Sir A. P. Herbert could be so eloquent, which we find both in Clause 6 and in Schedule 1. This is a major step forward and will, I hope, eliminate the so-called "fishing trips" which have so often in the past been counter productive by antagonising the local community where they occurred, and especially the most law-abiding members of the local community.
I should like to welcome Clause 11, though there is still a strong case for making the same organisations illegal in the whole of the United Kingdom, and indeed if possible in the Irish Republic as well. I welcome Clause 14, which protects the rights of people arrested, especially since in the nature of things some innocent people are bound to get arrested and some, whether they are innocent or guilty, will be under 18. When this happens, we know all too well that it causes very strong alarm to the parents and relations of those young people.
The Bill is, however, remarkable for the things that it omits. For instance, as has already been mentioned, the power of executive detention is retained. This is contrary to Sir George Baker's recommendation No. 26. I can foresee that at some future point an opportunity might occur for arresting a significant number of the godfathers of terrorism, against whom there will probably be insufficient evidence to prosecute. But if this situation ever does arise, I should have thought they could be held under the powers of existing legislation until such time—and it has to be a fairly short time, I agree—as Parliament could pass a detention measure tailor-made for specified persons.
I note that nothing is being done in the Bill to amend and clarify the law on the reasonable use of force by the security services as it applies to firearms. Nothing is being done to create a new offence lesser than murder or manslaughter covering the honest—and by that I mean the non-malicious—use of excessive force. This is a point on which again I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
As to the "certifying" out of scheduled offences, nothing seems to be done to give the Attorney-General
374
greater flexibility so that he may "certify" out any offence for trial by jury which he thinks proper and fit. This is where we come again to Sir George Baker's recommendations Nos. 12 to 17. Can the Minister please say why it has been that some 30 to 40 per cent. of the applications for certificates were refused in each year from 1982 to 1986 inclusive? It seems that this escape route towards normality is not working quite as well as one might hope.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Dunleath, I regret that the Bill offers nothing on the vexed question of the single judge without a jury in the Diplock courts. I suggest it is highly significant that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights—the Government's own appointed watchdog on this subject in Northern Ireland—has recommended a three judge court. It did so by a majority of the order or 15 to 2. Here I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the members of this standing advisory commission. It has been in existence now for 12 years or so and has had to walk through the minefield in a very sensitive area, subject to claims and counterclaims, to propaganda and to agitation of every kind. It has discharged this onerous duty in a very admirable way, with the aid of a small permanent staff.
I believe that there have been miscarriages of justice in a limited number of terrorist cases, both before a jury in England and before a single judge in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, an improvement in the composition of the Crown Court in Northern Ireland is highly material to perceptions of justice in that jurisdiction.
We have evidence from the special criminal court in Dublin that three judges sitting without a jury can work perfectly well as a court of first instance. I commend to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government the paper by Mr. John Jackson, who is a barrister and lecturer in law at Queen's University, Belfast. That paper is printed in full on page 63 onwards in the twelfth report of the standing advisory commission. The paper sets out how a three-judge court might function in practice and how the Bill could be amended to make that possible. Four different methods are listed on pages 73 to 75. I trust that the Government will soon give a considered reply to the standing advisory commission, since they have had the recommendation from that body since October of last year. Can the Minister say when that reply may be forthcoming?
If the real objection to three-judge courts is simply a lack of judges, we should make use of retired judges, of resident magistrates and of barristers of more than 10 years' standing. I think that it is worthy of note that Mr. Brice Dickson of the Law Faculty of Queen's University has recorded his opinion that only three extra full-time judges would be needed, who could well be found from a pool of some 60 qualified and experienced banisters. If the Government do not accept the recommendations of the standing advisory commission, the least I feel they could and should do would be to appoint an independent inquiry into possible improvements to the present Diplock courts. I also agree with the commission that so long as we have two Acts on the statute book, both intended to counter terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Emergency Provisions Act should have an annual review by an

375
independent person in the same way as the Prevention of Terrorism Act for the whole of the United Kingdom. I think that that was one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
There is urgent need for codes of practice and conduct for the Royal Ulster Constabulary similar to those which have been adopted for England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They set out clear guidelines for the police and a detailed statement of the rights of an individual and the safeguards available to detained persons. Perhaps I may ask the Minister when he replies to say when those codes will also be available for Northern Ireland.
Finally, I should like to welcome Clause 6, which concerns admissions and confessions. In doing so I also ask whether those new clauses cover violence or threats of violence to members of the immediate family of the accused. Such threats could be just as serious as direct threats to the accused person.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for having missed the first part of his speech. London is one gigantic building site at the moment and the average speed of traffic is down to about five miles an hour this morning.
It is refreshing to see Northern Ireland legislation embodied in a Bill at last, rather than in a wholly unamendable and hence unsatisfactory order. It is good, too, that for once we are dealing with an Ulster matter at a marginally more convenient time than is usually allotted to us. By and large, the contents of the Bill are to be warmly welcomed, although I briefly wonder whether Clause 13, which provides for the eventual repeal of the 1978 Act, is not giving hostages to fortune. I also have some reservations about Part III, but do not intend to elaborate on those reservations until we come to the Committee stage. Having said that, yesterday's local government election results make it increasingly unlikely that the Committee stage will be reached. I should therefore like to make a few general observations.
It was revealed in The Times six days ago that 244 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been murdered since the onset of the troubles. I say "revealed" advisedly because nowadays Fleet Street tends to give minimal coverage to the murder of a policeman or policewoman in Northern Ireland or the murder of anyone else for that matter, unless they happen to be unusually important people. Fleet Street may protest that circulation figures are all that matters and that their readers simply are not interested. The more frivolous tabloids aside, I do not think that that is a good enough answer. If separatists in Brittany, Corsica or Martinique had killed several hundred soldiers, policemen and members of the CRS over the same period of time, together with many tens of thousands of civilians, whether metropolitan French or les français d'outre-me, I believe that coverage in the French press would be much more comprehensive and prominent.
Perhaps I should say that ITN and, latterly the BBC news, after some of us had protested against the disproportionate coverage and attention the BBC gave to the hunger strikers, behave much better in this
376
respect. Let us give credit where credit is due. However, the playing down of the murder of hundreds of mostly innocent people matters. It matters because the public are said by the press to have a right to know: at the moment, they are not being given that right. More importantly, it creates a sense of alienation, in both directions. If murders in Belfast are given no greater prominence than similar murders in Bolivia or Bangladesh, then the English, the Welsh and, to a lesser extent because of their proximity, cultural and otherwise, the Scots public are subconsciously going increasingly to bracket what is part of the United Kingdom with those distant lands.
Meanwhile, the sense of alienation on the other side of the water, as well as the sense of cynicism and resentment, will grow apace, and morale will plummet even further. There may be, indeed I am sure that there are, some who will secretly welcome such a trend. But I warn them that the consequences may not be those to which they secretly aspire.
Returning to statistics, 244 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been murdered since August 1969. That is the equivalent of 8,750 policemen and policewomen murdered in England, Scotland and Wales, pro rata to the population: an average of 500 murders per annum. If 500 police officers had been murdered on the mainland every year on average for 17½ years, together with over 750 men of the Regular Army and the Territorial Army and over 2,000 wholly innocent civilians—by that, I mean those totally unconnected with extremist organisations—there would be no question of a one-column-inch report appearing regularly at the bottom of an inside page. On the contrary, the balloon would go up.
It is not too far-fetched that hysteria would reign. The public, the press, back-bench politicians and indeed many front-bench politicians would be crying for the most extreme responses: the right of hot pursuit; the re-introduction of capital punishment; a state of emergency; internment, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath; a shoot-to-kill policy; and possibly Israeli-style raids upon terrorist bases across the border. I am not arguing that all or any of those policies are necessarily desirable. But the British mainland is an effective democracy, where strong public opinion counts very much. The Government in such circumstances would be forced to take strong measures, possibly even against their better judgment.
As Northern Ireland is now, for various reasons which we need not go into at the moment, it is not an effective democracy. The Government are in a position virtually to ignore public opinion in the Province. The sole response to the latest wave of violence has been to recruit more RUC men, some of whom are to replace those who have been murdered, and to send a few more SAS men into the border areas.
It may be that the ability virtually to disregard local public opinion is a blessing in disguise; that unencumbered by the burden of responding to public opinion, the Government are able to reach the wisest decisions; and that the Government's relatively "softly, softly" policy (in a world context) is the most effective one. I certainly hope so, but must admit that I am not at all confident.
12.50 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we are indebted to the Minister for the careful and sober way in which he has presented this measure to the House. As in all debates on Northern Ireland, the House is exceedingly well served by those who are well connected with Northern Ireland and who bring to our debates their experience and views to the benefit not only of the House but also of the people of Northern Ireland. I have listened to every contribution with deep respect. Those of us who do not live in Northern Ireland but who perhaps, once removed, take responsibilities in these matters are certainly indebted.
Last September, with the full approval and help of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and I visited Northern Ireland. That visit gave us an insight, but it was nothing like the insight of those noble Lords who live there, and who can tell us of the problems. My purpose in having as it were, a second bite of the cherry on behalf of the official Opposition, is in no way to repeat what has been said, because there is a general welcome for the Bill not only in your Lordships' House but also, as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies mentioned, in another place.
The Minister was fair enough to acknowledge that the Bill was improved in another place. He also understands that in Northern Ireland, perhaps more than in any other spheres of government activity, there is a desperate yearning on behalf of all opposition parties to see the Government succeed. In many instances the opposition parties make the Government's job more difficult. However, when we are looking at what the Government are doing as regards Northern Ireland—namely, protecting innocent men and women, and bringing back to the province peace, security and stability, as well as progress—then no sane-minded opposition would wish to thwart that will.
Therefore, the Minister knows at the outset that we wish the Bill and its aspirations well. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said—and this was echoed by almost every speaker—that there is the satisfaction that we are dealing not with a series of orders or Motions but with something concrete and positive. By and large I echo the view of all noble Lords who have spoken that there is not very much with which one can disagree, but one expresses disappointment that some of the provisions that we would have wished to see in the Bill are not there.
When one looks at the provisions of a Bill of this kind, by normal standards one may take the view that it is unreal and grotesque. I say that because the conditions with which the Government, the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the United Kingdom have to deal in Northern Ireland are grotesque and unreal. However, it is not a question of using desperate measures. I remind the Minister and the House of the wise words of his ministerial colleague Mr. Nicholas Scott, who said:
"I believe democracies have to be careful in seeking to defend their democracy by not adopting means which play into the hands of the terrorists, and therefore, I think we should seek to derogate as little as possible from the normal standards of justice and government which we would normally apply".
It is an indication of the dangers and difficulties in Northern Ireland that we have had to derogate to the
378
extent that we have in the Bill. No sensible democrat wants to impose upon a system of justice in Northern Ireland the kind of provisions contained in the Bill.
I recognise that the Government have been seeking to maintain the balance—a balance which is always very difficult to strike and even more so in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the Government are right almost to bend over backwards to ensure that the civil liberties of the individuals, and even the terrorists and the organisations that they support, are taken fully into account when putting legislation on the statute book.
I wish to remind the Minister of the wise remarks of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. He said that what we want to see is support for the trend of channelling back into the normal jury system. The Government want normality but it is a question of pace.
The terrible murder of a judge and his wife on the border and the subsequent events remind us that there is a dreadful price to be paid if we do not maintain a proper system of security. My noble friend was also wise not only in welcoming the many provisions in the Bill but also in reminding the Minister—if indeed he needed reminding—that substantially we are talking about security and justice. Moreover, the solution in Northern Ireland will be found only when politicians find a political solution that is acceptable to everyone.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, when he raised the issue of treating silence in the face of interrogation as something akin to a driver who refuses to give specimens for tests. Although it is an interesting theory, it does not sound attractive to me because it is one of the frustrations and hurdles with which police and security forces of all nations have to contend. The alternative is to use methods of breaking the silence, but certainly we on this side of the House would have nothing to do with them.
In conclusion, I remind the Minister of the points about which my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said that we were uneasy. I am talking of matters that we would raise at Committee stage, which under normal circumstances one would envisage taking place within the next two or three weeks. However, these are not normal times because we are living in the period immediately before the calling of a general election. But I think that the record ought to show where our unease lies.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies expressed unease that the Bill does not repeal the powers of the Secretary of State contained in Section 12 of the 1978 Act to detain a person without trial. He also indicated that Clause 12 of the Bill deals with the compensation paid to a person whose property is taken, destroyed or damaged by members of the security forces in the course of their duty. My noble friend mentioned the uncertainty of the principles which determine the payment of compensation and also the claims procedure. Perhaps the Minister has those points in mind and will deal with them in his reply.
My noble friend then drew to the attention of the House, as did other noble Lords, the concern in Northern Ireland that the right to jury trial is not available for a wide range of offences. Perhaps the Minister will also deal with that point. We accept that

379
it is unrealistic to talk of the restoration of the normal jury trial system.
My noble friend then raised another omission; namely, the disappointment among many members of the Catholic community that advantage has not been taken in this new legislation to place some limitation on the right to stop and search citizens at random.
I want merely to repeat what my noble friend said. It is deeply regrettable that such legislation is required. However, we share the view of the Government and the Minister that it is required. We are pleased that the measures have been codified and brought up to date in the Bill.
1 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has summed up our discussions on this Bill. All the remarks that have been made about the measures contained in this contentious legislation, which have been with us while the emergency has existed, have been extremely well balanced and thought out. They have given me and the Government food for thought. I hope that I shall be able to cover most, if not all, of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to your Lordships for giving me some indication of the points that may be raised and the markers that may be put down at later stages of the Bill.
At the outset I wish to take 30 seconds of your Lordships' time to allude to one sad event among the many that have taken place in Northern Ireland during the security emergency. Last Sunday an especially sad event occurred with the death of the Dowager Duchess of Westminster, who, as your Lordships may be aware, was Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant for the county of Fermanagh. It would be remiss of me personally, and on behalf of the Government, to allow that terribly sad event to pass unremarked in your Lordships' House.
All of us who have been connected with service in Northern Ireland in government, or in any other way, have noted the marvellous contribution made by the late dowager Duchess for many years. She had just retired from the position of Lord Lieutenant, which she had held since 1979. To say that the dowager Duchess was loved by all sections of the Northern Ireland community would be an understatement. We mourn her passing.
We have had an interesting and illuminating debate. I shall start by trying to reassure your Lordships that we too are pleased that we can include these measures in a Bill. Every speaker has drawn attention to that fact. We are grateful that it has been noticed.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked whether I could place in the Library those of the Baker recommendations that had been dealt with and those which had not. I have put in my notes, "Library; why not?" I hope that I can do that. I shall place in the Library the information that we made available earlier this week. If I can, I shall try to fill in any gaps in the information about the Baker recommendations. I shall discuss the point with my advisers and then take action.
380
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about a number of points. First, he asked about the repeal of the police arrest powers contained in Section 11 of the 1978 Act. That is covered by Clause 6 of the Bill. The significance of the repeal of the police arrest power contained in Section 11 of the 1978 Act is that it removes an overlap in the emergency arrest powers contained in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and similar powers contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. We consider that the system we have evolved in Clause 6 and the continuing powers under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act provide all the grounds we believe to be necessary for arrests to be carried out in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also mentioned Clause 5, which replaces Section 8 of the 1978 Act and deals with the admissibility of confession evidence. The provisions relating to the admissibility of confession evidence in England and Wales could not be applied to terrorist cases in Northern Ireland. All your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Dunleath and Lord Fitt, are aware of the situation in Northern Ireland. We do not think that those provisions could safely be applied.
There is a risk that the Northern Ireland courts would of necessity return to the pre-Diplock interpretation of the law, which resulted in the non-admissibility of virtually all statements made in police custody although there was no ill-treatment and the statement could only have been made by a person who was, to all intents and purposes, guilty. I ask noble Lords to accept that such provisions relating to the admissibility of evidence would not be practical and would not work.
The noble Lord also asked me about the Attorney-General's discretion to certify out. That power has not been extended to cover robbery or what I think the noble Lord called aggravated burglary. Those would be the only two scheduled offences in which a weapon is used. Certifying out has not been extended because of the difficulty in determining the accused person's motive. I believe that the noble Lord will accept that. There would also be a difficulty in reaching an objective decision about the appropriate method of trial.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Graham, asked about the stop and search provisions. I hope that noble Lords will accept that stopping and searching has to be random if it is to be effective, first to deter, and, secondly, to prevent terrorist activity. We are alert to the difficulties caused by the possible abuse of those powers. We take the greatest care to try to reduce all abuses. Your Lordships will be aware that during the past two years we have tried to ensure that those unpleasant measures are carried out as politely and humanely as possible. I hope that I have your Lordships' support for these regrettable but necessary measures. I believe that they are welcomed by most people in Northern Ireland, because they help to protect the entire community.
Your Lordships will of course be aware of the enormous haul of explosives, weighing well over one tonne, which was made last weekend. I am not aware of the full details, but that indicates to your Lordships

381
the circumstances which exist in Northern Ireland and that random searches of traffic and people are necessary. We shall continue to try to reduce any abuses.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about compensation claims. They are covered by Clause 12. He asked how many compensation claims had not been settled within 12 months. I hope noble Lords will accept that the new compensation provisions in Clause 12 require notice of a claim which should be submitted within a maximum of 12 months. The noble Lord is seized of the point that the claims do not have to be settled within 12 months. I stress to him that most claims are settled within the period unless the claimant is dissatisfied with the settlement offered. Your Lordships will therefore see that there is a very fair mechanism with which these grievances can be redressed. Noble Lords will find the provision at pages 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill.
The noble Lord raised the question of a field of grain for a farmer. That matter would arrive on my desk in the Northern Ireland Office; indeed, most matters of drainage seem to end up with me. The example given by the noble Lord would become evident within 12 months. Most farmers are swift to take precautionary action, which is all that is needed under the terms of Clause 12 of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred to the police procedures with regard to persons such as the late Lord Justice Gibson and Lady Gibson or any person who might wish to cross the border in either direction at any time. I am able to stress to the noble Lord that the chief constable of the RUC is pursuing very urgently his inquiries into the circumstances of the murder of Lord Justice and Lady Gibson and the security procedures and advice provided for those such as the judiciary in Northern Ireland who are under constant threat from terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already signed a vehicle control zone order making it illegal for vehicles to stop on that stretch of the A.1 immediately north of the border where vehicles are at particular risk from car bombs such as the one which murdered Lord Justice and Lady Gibson.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, also spoke about the elimination of the right to silence. I note very carefully what he said about the problems which are raised for the investigating and prosecuting authorities by the principle of the right of a suspect to remain silent during questioning. Your Lordships will understand that this is a very difficult area which the Government would hesitate to enter without considering very carefully the whole issue of civil rights of individuals.
Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place in the lengthy debate on security last Wednesday. My right honourable friend said:
"That is why we are continuing to consider ways in which the work of the security forces can be helped to bring terrorists before the courts. While maintaining fair treatment under the law, we will ensure that if terrorists are found guilty, they are subject to the full rigour of the law. I do not propose to comment any further on those
382
matters now. However, I hope that the House has listened carefully to what I have said and will be under no illusions about the seriousness with which I regard that aspect of the problem".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/5/87; cols, 741-2.]
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that my right honourable friend has taken these points on board, and in particular the point on the right to silence. However, we should not take a step to remove the right to silence with regard to the provisions today, and in particular when we look at Clause 5.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, also raised the question of the discretionary approach to 50 per cent. remission in sentences. I note what he said. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his very helpful comments. He raised two points to which I shall come later. One was the question of three- judge courts and the other was that of internment and detention. I have also noted the thoughts of the noble Lord on Clause 11 of the Bill. I share with him the hope that these measures can be enforced. We certainly believe that there is a strong probability that they can be enforced and offenders brought before the courts. We believe that the attempt to stamp out this menace will be successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, was kind enough to give me notice of the case of the teacher, to which I shall come in a moment. He referred to the murder rate being 250 per cent. higher than in the same period in 1986. I stress that the Government share the concern of the noble Lord about the recent upsurge of terrorist murders in Northern Ireland but I hope he will agree that we do not want to play into the hands of the terrorists, and of those who support them, by adopting draconian measures which would undoubtedly be counter-productive in the Government's consistent policy over a number of years to isolate terrorists from the community which they falsely claim to represent.
I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I hope that he can be classified as a friendly Member of your Lordships' House inside and out. I hope your Lordships will accept that we have to maintain the balance between justified and essential means to counter terrorism which we are using in Northern Ireland and other methods—which we insist are necessary in a democracy—that we have in Part I of the Bill. We want to maintain the balance between adequate powers for the security forces and protection for the basic rights of all citizens. It is still the fact that citizens are innocent until they are proved guilty, even with the situation in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, also spoke of the powers of the security forces to take on terrorists. Under the law the security forces can use whatever force—and that includes lethal force—is reasonable in the circumstances. Those four words restrict the security forces in a way that I believe your Lordships will consider absolutely essential.
It is rightly a matter for the courts to decide in particular cases whether the use of lethal force was justified. I stress to the noble Lord that there is no legal or regulatory requirement for the security forces to hold fire until the terrorists open fire. I hope that the

383
noble Lord will accept that statement; it is essential that it is clearly understood.
I do not wish to go down the avenue of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in this debate this afternoon. Nevertheless, the Government believe that the agreement continues to offer sufficient reassurance to both sides of the community in Northern Ireland to enable them to engage in constructive political dialogues. The agreement, however, provides a very important framework for co-ordinating security force activity on both sides of the border. Members of the Government have made no secret of the fact that the agreement would not achieve results overnight. I do not accept that this upsurge in terrorist activity is necessarily connected with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That may be the opinion of sundry people in Northern Ireland but we do not accept that as being the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was kind enough to warn me that he would have one or two complicated matters to raise. One of the points that he wished me to cover was the response of the Government to the letter from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in October, recommending the introduction of three-judge courts to try scheduled offences. The Government took into account the views contained in the SACHR's letter before we arrived at our decision, which my honourable friend the Minister of State explained at an earlier stage of the Bill in another place. I hope he will accept that we took the point on board. That is as far as we can go today.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the matter of compensation. I hope that he will find that the period of 12 months in Clause 12 is sufficient. I stress once again that the measures in Clause 12 are there merely so that the aggrieved person may give notice of his intention to make a claim.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and other noble Lords raised a question on detention and whether the word "internment" also was covered by detention. I shall cover them under one heading. I am sure the House will accept that the Government have a responsibility—even more, we have a duty—to ensure that the appropriate powers are available to protect the entire community in Northern Ireland from the effects of terrorism. We also have to take into account the possibility of deterioration which could not be foreseen in the security situation and in the ability of the courts to deal with terrorists. The Government have considered these two aspects very carefully. We concluded that it would not be right to repeal the provisions for detention at this stage. I stress that they have not been used since 1975. They have not been in force since 1980, but while they remain on the statute book they constitute a reserve power which could—I stress that conditional—be implemented at short notice in response to an emergency.
The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Hampton, raised the matter of three-judge courts. We have a proposal that three-judge courts should be established for the trial of scheduled offences in. Northern Ireland, but we see three substantial objections. The first is that the current Diplock procedures contain powerful safeguards which in our view sufficiently compensate
384
for the absence of a jury. I think your Lordships will know that in the detailed paper on the proposal the Standing Advisory Commission emphasised that there was no reason to believe that the current Diplock procedures had led to any unfairness. There is statistical evidence to show that the percentage of cases which go to the appeal court from a Diplock court—every convicted person from a Diplock court has a right to appeal—is the same as that for any other cases which go to appeal.
Secondly, there would be substantial practical and procedural difficulties. Thirdly, as your Lordships are aware, the divided society in Northern Ireland places us in a situation where in practice three-judge courts would be most unlikely to promote public confidence in the administration of justice. For those three main reasons I am afraid we are not persuaded that it would be right to provide in this Bill for the establishment of three-judge courts for the trial of scheduled offences. But I stress that we look forward to the day when jury trial can be restored for all cases in Northern Ireland.
A question on time limits was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. We have time limits in Clause 3. As noble Lords will see, Clause 3 provides for the grant of bail if what we call the custody time limit is exceeded. I cannot say when the regulations which will impose time limits will be drafted. Before introducing time limits we want to await the outcome of the experiment being carried out by the Home Office with actual time limits. These experiments began only on 1st April this year. We shall then be collecting more data from our own monitoring exercise, which has been running for less than a year. I hope we shall have something more to report then.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a query about overlap and the problems of confusion with arrests for the emergency provisions Act and prevention of terrorism Act powers and whether these should be contained in a single Act for Northern Ireland. But in Clauses 6, 14 and 15 the Bill seeks to tie the two Acts together and to create what we hope will be a coherent package of anti-terrorist law for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also kindly warned me about his query on certifying out and the percentages of applications which were refused. The noble Lord was in correspondence with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on one of these aspects. In these cases my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General would have concluded, on the basis of detailed notes submitted to him by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that it would not be right to issue a certificate to enable the cases to be tried before a jury in the proportion of cases mentioned by the noble Lord. I stress to the noble Lord that this decision is one for the Attorney-General.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether the Government proposed to establish an independent inquiry into the procedures of the Diplock courts. The late Sir George Baker studied the whole issue with great care. He recommended that there should be no change. The Government have given detailed consideration to this matter and have concluded that the procedures we have are satisfactory. We think they

385
are those which are likely to remain in the confidence of the public.
I can help the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced that he is considering the appointment of an independent person of standing to review the operation of the emergency provisions Act each year. That is the position at the moment. If there is anything further on which I can help the noble Lord I hope that I shall be able to do so before too long.
The noble Lord also asked me about a code of practice and a code of conduct for the RUC. This is a matter for the chief constable. I understand that the matter is in an advanced stage of preparation, but I stress that the code will not bite on the exercise of emergency powers or on the exercise of power by the armed forces. My honourable friend the Minister of State announced on 8th April that the Government would be publishing and bringing into force a non-statutory code of practice for the exercise of emergency powers by the RUC and the armed forces.
I am sorry that I have my notes out of order. I shall be winding up straight away. There was one last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about a teacher whom he mentioned. The Department of Education became aware in October 1986 that during the past two years this lady, Miss Gleeson, had had three criminal convictions—impersonation at an election, assault on the police and obstruction of the police. The department informed this lady that it proposed to withdraw her recognition as a teacher on grounds of misconduct, subject to any representations which might be made by her. These representations were heard and in all the circumstances the department decided not to withdraw recognition. She was informed by letter on 10th April of this year and at the same time was given a stern warning as to her future conduct.
I hesitate to say that I have covered all the points that have been raised during this debate on what is a short but complicated Bill. I hope that I have covered most points, but if there are any others we shall no doubt be able to pick them up at a later stage. I should like to thank all your Lordships for giving such close and detailed consideration to the Bill. It stresses that these are emergency provisions and, as your Lordships know, we are in an emergency situation in Northern Ireland. The Government are grateful for the consideration and tolerance with which it has been considered. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Stansted Airport Aircraft Movement Limit Order 1987
1.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 7th April be approved.
The Government have always recognised the concern which residents of the Stansted area feel about
386
the development of Stansted airport. That is why we made it an explicit condition of planning permission for the expansion of Stansted that development should be phased so that local infrastructure can gradually absorb the increasing demand. Our commitment to phased development was confirmed in the 1985 White Paper when we promised to restrict development in the first instance to no more than about 7 to 8 million passengers per annum—about half the 15 million passengers per year for which planning consent has been given—by means of a limit on air transport movements. The 1985 White Paper promised also that decisions on ATM limits should be for Parliament, and we have kept that promise too, for Section 79 of the 1986 Act permits an ATM limit order to be made only with the approval of Parliament on the affirmative resolution procedure.
Turning now to the detail of the order itself, the Government propose that there should be a limit of 78,000 air transport movements at Stansted to correspond to a passenger throughput of about 7 to 8 million passengers per year. The figure of 78,000 ATMs has been calculated on our most recent air passenger traffic forecasts and is generated by two factors: the relative proportion of different traffic types that we expect to be serving Stansted when passenger throughput nears 8 million passengers per annum; and the average aircraft passenger loading at that time. In suggesting a limit of 78,000 ATMs our calculations assume that all categories of traffic at Stansted will experience significant growth, such that, at 8 million passengers per annum, Stansted would have about 10 per cent. domestic passengers, roughly 37 per cent. short-haul charter passengers, about 19 per cent. short-haul scheduled passengers and the balance—a little short of 35 per cent. of long-haul passengers.
The second element of the calculation, the passenger loading, has been estimated by comparison with Gatwick. In the light of the similarities between Stansted now and Gatwick in its early years, one can reasonably make inferences about the passenger loadings that might operate at Stansted when it is handling 8 million passengers per annum and the passenger loadings at Gatwick when that airport had an identical passenger volume. An absolutely precise parallel cannot be drawn. Corrections have had to be made to take account of increased average aircraft capacities and to eliminate distortions resulting from the low passenger loadings on the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link operating then, each movement of which constituted an ATM.
The Government have naturally considered the possibility of different traffic and passenger loading outturns and have tested the robustness of the proposed limit against varying assumptions. We considered two outlying scenarios in particular: rapid growth in short-haul scheduled services, the result of extensive liberalisation and deregulation; and rapid growth in the charter market, with short/medium-haul charter passengers forming a much larger proportion of the annual total. Neither scenario revealed a difference of more than I per cent. from the 78,000 figure.
The draft order is in five articles. The first two define the limit itself and its period of operation. The remaining articles address those classes of aircraft

387
movement not counting towards the proposed limit. During the passage of the Airports Act 1986 we described what an ATM limit would and would not cover. In particular, we explained that the limit would exclude diversion, positioning, air-taxi and general aviation movements; and, in accord with our White Paper undertaking to limit development in terms of passenger volume, the proposed limit bears on passenger air transport movements only.
The measure to which the Government now seek your Lordships' approval is both apt and timely. It strikes a balance between the acknowledged need for additional airport capacity in the South-East and the local interests of those who live or work in the Stansted area. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th April be approved. [18th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order and I recognise that the Government have adhered to their undertaking to have an ATM limit at Stansted. However, I question whether the proposed limit of 78,000 is a proper one to have put forward at this stage.
As the Minister said, Article 3 details various exclusions—the positioning of aircraft, air-taxi and general aviation movements and cargo only flights. I understand that in 1986 the number of cargo only movements amounted to something like 4,500. That would be 6 per cent. of the 78,000 ATM limit. I gather that the number of cargo flights has been increasing and could increase further. They fly over the area where I live on the edge of Epping Forest. Fortunately, they are sufficiently high so that they do not worry me greatly but they will worry people in the area of the airport itself.
It has been estimated that the movements excluded by Article 3 could be as many as 10 per cent. in addition to the 78,000. When considering the Airports Bill it will be remembered that I urged that there should be consideration of environmental aspects. I do not withdraw anything I said on that matter. I welcome the attitude taken by the Government and repeated by the Minister in giving some assurance to residents living in the area.
There are other factors which do not appear to have been taken into consideration. At present the number of movements at Stansted is about 16,000. The 78,000 will be five times the present limit. It would appear that the 78,000 ATM limit would be the maximum possible under the first phase of up to 8 million passengers per annum.
This would give an average of a little over 100 passengers per flight. The maximum order does not appear to have any relation at all to traffic distribution policy, except within the South-East area, which we have debated on various occasions. In this respect I regret the failure to consult the North of England Regional Consortium or JACOLA (which, as noble Lords will know, is the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities), even though it has been stated by the Minister in the other place that some 31 bodies were consulted. I recognise that there is no statutory
388
requirement to consult the two bodies to which I have referred. Undoubtedly the CAA has been consulted, as has the airport operator affected, which is Stansted. I understand the operators of aircraft flying to and from Stansted have also been consulted.
There is provision in Section 32 for any local authority or authorities which appear to the Secretary of State to be affected by operations of the airports also to be consulted and that has been interpreted as being those in the immediate area of Stansted. I suggest that this order for an ATM limit at Stansted goes far beyond the immediate area. It would seem that the regional airports must be affected by this order. That is why I referred to the fact that there should be some consideration given to traffic distribution policy.
The Minister has given the estimated division of the various categories of flights. Obviously, domestic and short-haul charter flights will be of interest to regional airports. But, in particular, the estimated 35 per cent. of the maximum ATM of long-haul passengers will be of vital interest to them. If 35 per cent. is to be the figure reached for long-haul passengers, that means 2,750,000 more passengers on such flights going to and from Stansted.
From where will they come? This must be of interest to the regional airports. That is why I regret that the two bodies to which I have referred, even though there is no statutory requirement to do so, have not been consulted by the Minister. It would have been wise if he had done so. Instead of fixing the maximum limit of 78,000, which, of course, can be breached as soon as circumstances allow, surely it might have been preferable to have phased in the ATM position at Stansted in relation to a traffic distribution policy nationwide, not merely for the South-East.
I am naturally concerned that if the 8 million passenger throughput and the 78,000 ATM are reached—I am not going into the question as to whether the present Administration will be looking after this; that is another matter—there will be a tendency to proceed for parliamentary approval for increase the throughput to 15 million for which, as the Minister reminded us, there is planning permission. An even higher ATM would then be sought leading eventually to the possibility of 25 million for which the runway has the capacity.
When we debated airports' policy we heard of the views expressed by a body which called itself the National Policy for Britain's Airports. I remarked at the time that it did not originate in the Essex area but from outside it. It is the same with nuclear policy; somebody else's backyard, never our own. I recently attended a seminar arranged by this body. I put the same point that all the bodies that were represented appeared to be well outside the Stansted area. There must be consideration given to these factors.
I welcome the Government keeping to their pledge and taking into consideration environmental matters. To go right up to 78,000 at this stage, without consideration of a national traffic distribution policy and the consideration of regional airports, is a grave mistake.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, though for precisely opposite reasons, I am not at all happy about this order. I hope that my noble friend will not mind if I say that it is depressing to those of us who believe in the expansion of British civil aviation to find an order being produced which would inhibit the expansion of an airport into which a great deal of public money is being invested and which is undoubtedly necessary for the proper development of British civil aviation.
Civil aviation is one of our success stories of recent years. It is one of the things that we do extremely well in this country. I need hardly say that to the bearer of a great name in the aviation world such as the Minister. It seems to me to be unhappy that we should he imposing an arbitrary limit on this expansion.
I have no sympathy at all, I am afraid, with the complaint by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the Government did not consult organisations operating rival airports. It would be quite wrong to inhibit the development of a particular airport, in which the Government themselves are seeing that a considerable investment is made, with a view to driving operators away from an airport they want to use to others which, ex hypothesi, they did not want so much to use.
It would be quite wrong because, as I understand it, the Government are imposing this limit not to interfere with the free choice of airport by the airlines but simply to seek to appease the excitements of local people who fear environmental disturbance if the airport develops.
I hope that the Government are not going to be too tender in that direction. We went through all this over the development of Gatwick. Some of your Lordships may remember that I had the honour, as the then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, of taking the decision to develop Gatwick. We had every sort of local environmental trouble.
We faced it, and, as a result, Gatwick has now brought an enormous amount of wealth into West Sussex. It provides a great deal of first-class employment and has helped enormously in the development of that part of the world. A proper, full-throated development of Stansted can do the same in Essex. Therefore, personally, I regret a limit being imposed.
Incidentally, if your Lordships look at the terms of the order, you will see that it is an example of a non sequitur of a kind so extraordinary that it is rarely seen anywhere outside the law courts. It first of all says that as the runway is not being fully used, we are going to impose a restriction on the amount of use given to it. That is a complete non sequitur.
I hope that my noble friend will realise that if he had wished, in his efforts to appease local irritation over development of this airport, it would have been more logical to have said (if he could have done, but, of course, he could not) that it was because the runway was being so much used that it was necessary to impose a restriction. But to say that because it is so little used it is necessary to impose a restriction is wholly illogical. There is perhaps some objection to enacting illogicality in delegated legislation.
390
On the more serious side, my noble friend did not say a word about what is highly relevant—the fact that all expert forecasts of demand for airport facilities in the South-East predict a substantial shortage in capacity before the end of the century. Indeed, my noble friend may remember that some of us, a little time ago, were pressing the Government for information as to what they were doing about it.
That, of course, meant that we felt—as I certainly feel—that given the time it takes to develop airports, it really is important for the Government to be getting ahead with further airport development now. All we are given here is an order which, if it has any effect at all, is an order to restrict development. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, the figure selected—it is an odd sort of figure, too—for the limit of movements in the year is well above the current level, it must be something of a discouragement to those who are responsible for developing this airport, and for the operators who want to operate out of it, to know that the Government are putting an arbitrary limit on the number of movements that may take place.
Generally speaking, it is government policy—it is certainly the policy of this Government—to encourage the maximum development and the maximum output of the various industries with which we are concerned. But, here, you are placing a barrier beyond which, legally, it would be impossible, while this order lasts for the airport to develop. Psychologically that is unfortunate. If I may be allowed to take the matter a little further, the whole story of Stansted is extraordinary.
The development of Stansted as a major London airport was approved in 1964 by the Government of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. Since then there have been innumerable public inquiries which have done no good to anybody, except perhaps members of the Bar who have made a very good living from them. Here we are, 23 years later, nervously restricting the use of one runway at Stansted. If government civil aviation policy had been more consistent and sensible, Stansted would by now have developed to something at least of the scale of Gatwick. Perhaps, unlike Gatwick, it would have been allowed a second runway and would be serving a major part in the development of British civil aviation. I do not blame my noble friend for those delays because out of the 23 years involved he has hardly been responsible for 23 weeks.
However, I am sorry to see him following the policy of playing down and trying to restrict the development of this airport. I should like to see the number of its movements rise and increase, and I should like to see the Government encouraging that. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, it is true that at the moment this particular figure will have no practical effect, although it has adverse psychological effects. I hope that the Government will watch this matter. If the number of movements comes anywhere near to it, as I hope it will before long, the order will have to be withdrawn and either be replaced by another at a much higher figure or, better still, be replaced by no order at all.
I hope my noble friend will obtain this order. I hope he will not take it with the feeling that it is an order which arouses much enthusiasm among those of

391
us—and I hope that he will include himself—who want to see British civil aviation continue to develop and make a major contribution to the well-being of the British economy.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I doubt very much whether the honourable Member for Saffron Walden will hear those remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with much enthusiasm.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? If the honourable Member for Saffron Walden understands economics, and if he studies the benefits which the development of Gatwick have brought to the constituencies of the Members in the area, he should welcome them. If he is a sensible man, I am sure that he will.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we can doubtless draw that matter to his attention at an appropriate moment during the next few weeks.
I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his vision of the whole of the South-East of England covered with concrete and with aircraft coming in every minute of the day and night. I think that that sort of dark satanic mill approach to aircraft movements is not one that we on these Benches wish to follow.
I should like to thank the Minister for introducing this order and to ask him to clarify two points that have already been dealt with to a degree by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Can the Minister give some figures for the number of aircraft which, in the Government's scenario, are likely to be involved in positioning flights? The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked how many aircraft are likely to be involved in cargo flights. They are important numbers because very often cargo flights are noisier than passenger flights. The aircraft tend to be older and more heavily loaded. They are likely to cause some disturbance to those living in the area around the airport.
There is certainly no great opposition to this order from these Benches. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, we believe it is a pity that the other regional airports were not at least asked for their views; not that the Government should necessarily fall in line with any such views. One of the matters which I have become a little fed up with is the northern airports in particular beating Stansted about the ears. As things stand, I do not think that they will suffer greatly from the increased movements at Stansted. However, the people around Stansted are entitled to consideration. I think that the Government have shown some consideration, even if the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the response of noble Lords to the introduction of this order; although there are mixed opinions from opposite sides of the House as to whether we are not going far enough (from my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter) or are going too far too quickly (from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill). I should like to think that we probably have it just about right. In any case, all that we are doing is fulfilling the undertakings that we gave during consideration of the White Paper and the Airports Bill.
392
I endorse entirely what was said by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in connection with the success story of the history of civil aviation in this country. I am also grateful for the remarks that he made as regards my family connections in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke of the possibility of consultation beyond the immediate area. The important point is that the ATM limit is a local measure, designed to enable local infrastructure to absorb the impact of the Stansted development. The consultation on the proposed limit reflects the local nature of the measure. The purpose of making the ATM limit subject to affirmative resolution is to provide for the most searching scrutiny by Parliament. That is what we have done today to some extent.
As regards the effect of the Stansted development on regional airports, to which the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, referred, we have no evidence to suggest that there will be an adverse effect on traffic at regional airports. The development is being timed to meet the forecast need for additional capacity to serve the London area airports. Some of the regional airports are at the moment enjoying pretty good traffic growth on their own account. I entirely agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter: that one cannot force people to fly from places they do not want to go from. Indeed, the idea of using an ATM limit order to reallocate traffic, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, we do not believe to be a good one.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, is it not the case that it is necessary to force aircraft to go to where they do not want to go? Everyone wants to go to Heathrow at the moment. I accept that passengers may want to go to Gatwick but, on the whole, airlines want to go to Heathrow. Some of them cannot go there and that is why they must go to Stansted. By putting limitations on developments at Heathrow, one is forcing people to go to Stansted. It is not a totally free market.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that it is not a totally free market but that is because Heathrow is at the moment operating at virtually full capacity. That situation does not arise elsewhere. Traffic distribution is not the purpose of an ATM limit. The purpose is to control the rate of expansion at an airport. The Airports Act provides different powers for traffic distribution rules in Section 31. The rules which were made last year took account of the Government's intention for an ATM limit at Stansted.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, queried the capacity in the South-East of England at the present time. Both BAA plc and Stansted Airport support the order. Naturally the Government are keeping longterm capacity under review, as doubtless will BAA plc as the main provider of airport capacity in the South-East. The CAA will also keep a close watch on capacity issues in the light of its duties under Section 16(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, asked about the volume of cargo flights. I can confirm that the current usage figures show that there were 4,337 all-cargo movements last year, but only 584—or less than 14 per cent.—were by jet aircraft.

393
The vast majority—over 86 per cent.—were by small propeller-driven aircraft, which are relatively quiet. Therefore, I hope that that will not add significantly to the noise nuisance at the airport.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked me about positioning flights. I am afraid I have not got an answer for him at the moment but if at all possible I will write to the noble Lord. I hope I have covered most of the points made by your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Offshore Employment) Order 1987
2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th May be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that these draft orders be approved. First, however, I regret to have to draw your Lordships' attention to a technical error in the printed copies of the schedules to both orders. The schedules define, by means of coordinates, the Norwegian part of the Frigg natural gas field and paragraphs 1(b) of both schedules refer to the parallel of latitude 50°50'00"N. The correct parallel of latitude is 59°50'00"N. I am given to understand that the earlier version embraces most of the South-East of England. The revised versions of both orders, containing a manuscript amendment, were laid before your Lordships' House on Tuesday 5th May, and I hope your Lordships will accept my apologies for this error.
The orders have a simple but important purpose and one which I am sure all Members of your Lordships' House will appreciate and welcome. The orders will extend the coverage of the equality laws—the Sex Discrimination, Equal Pay and Race Relations Acts—to offshore employment on the United Kingdom continental shelf, except for those areas where the law of Northern Ireland applies. By offshore employment I mean, to quote the wording of the orders:
"Employment concerned with the exploration of the seabed or subsoil or the exploitation of their natural resources".
The orders will therefore extend the legislation I have mentioned to employment connected with the oil and gas industries' offshore activities in the North Sea and elsewhere around the coast of Great Britain.
The orders will also extend coverage of the three Acts to employees of British and British-based companies anywhere in the Frigg natural gas field. This field straddles the geographical boundary line between the United Kingdom and the Norwegian areas of the continental shelf—one rig is, I understand, actually part in the UK and part in Norway. It was of course necessary to obtain the Norwegian Government's agreement for extension to the Frigg field, and this we have done.
The powers for extending the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act to offshore employment in the specified activities are to be found
394
in those Acts in Sections 10(5) and 8(5) respectively. Section 10(5) of the Sex Discrimination Act also provides similarly for the extension of the Equal Pay Act. Given the progress towards equality which has been made since these Acts were passed in the 1970s, the Government believe it is time to bring these powers into use.
To take sex discrimination first, it is now generally accepted that women should have the right to the same employment opportunities as men. At the same time, traditional attitudes still persist in some areas and indeed are held by women as well as men. A 1984 study prepared for the Equal Opportunities Commission showed that women were only 0.1 per cent. of a normal shift in the offshore industry. It would be surprising if the exclusion from the legislation has not had something to do with this. My noble friend Lady Platt and the Equal Opportunities Commission, who have done so much to advance the cause of equality, are, I know, very concerned that the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act should be extended to cover offshore employment.
I am encouraged by the responses to the consultation the Government have undertaken in connection with these changes, which have confirmed our belief that employers in the offshore industry, like employers generally, are opposed to discrimination. Even so, I am sure that women's talents are still not being used to the full. This legislative protection will not only ensure that employers will have to change unjustifiable discriminatory practices, where these continue to exist, but will also give women greater encouragement and confidence to put themselves forward where job opportunities occur.
As regards racial discrimination, there is already a very considerable mix of nationalities and racial groups among persons employed offshore. I cannot say because of this that discrimination never occurs. Where it does, the race relations order before us today will give individuals a right of redress. I know that this will be welcomed by the Commission for Racial Equality.
I mentioned consultations. The Government have of course taken the views of both sides of industry—the CBI, the TUC and the Scottish TUC—before proposing these changes and I am delighted to report that all supported them in principle. The CBI was, however, concerned that there should be an adequate lead-in period for employers, and the TUC and the STUC were concerned that problems over provision of separate sleeping accommodation and other necessary facilities for women should not become an easy avenue of escape from the legislation.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about both these points, which were the only substantive ones arising from the consultation. Taking due account of the CBI's concern, the draft orders have a commencement date of 1st November 1987. This will give employers just under six months, including the all-important summer months, in which to make any structural alterations which may be necessary for their compliance with the Sex Discrimination Act. As your Lordships will appreciate, most structural work offshore is possible only in the summer months.
The same commencement date is proposed for both orders in order to avoid confusion, although the considerations that I have just outlined are relevant only to extension of the sex discrimination legislation. The Government hope that employers will take full advantage of the lead-in period where alterations to accommodate women are necessary and practicable. However, Section 7(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act covers circumstances in which it would not be reasonable to require the provisions of separate sleeping accommodation and sanitary facilities so that both men and women can be employed. I appreciate that that lies at the heart of the concern that has been expressed by the TUC and the Scottish TUC. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, who is sitting opposite will express those views.
Perhaps I should say against that background that when the legislation is extended to offshore employment, Section 7(2), as it does at present for onshore employment, will provide a defence for an employer who employs one sex only in circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to expect him or her to provide accommodation and facilities for both sexes. The point about Section 7(2) that I wish to emphasise this afternoon is that it does not provide employers with a blanket defence. If an employer's decision not to provide for both sexes were challenged, the facts of the matter would have to be considered by an industrial tribunal and it would be for the tribunal to decide whether in all the particular circumstances the employer's decision was reasonable. I should stress that I am confident that tribunals will ensure that the protection of employers in Section 7(2) is not abused. I understand that in the limited number of cases where tribunals have had to consider this matter they have always held it reasonable that employers should provide separate facilities. Because of this, the Equal Opportunities Commission commented in their document Legislating For Change? that they considered no amendment to Section 7(2) of that Act was necessary.
Of course, I shall be happy to respond to any questions that may arise from my opening remarks. I commend both draft orders to your Lordships. I believe that they represent a small but nevertheless significant further step towards equality, and that they will point up in a very particular way the importance and good business sense of choosing the best person for any job, regardless of sex or race. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 5th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
2.10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure that nobody in your Lordships' House can possibly wish to object to any move to enlarge the scope of the race relations and sex discrimination Acts, and on that basis we welcome these orders. Indeed, many people have said that this step should have been taken before now.
As the Minister has said, the EOC has always pressed for sex discrimination legislation to be extended to offshore employment. However, I believe
396
that there is a problem. There is no doubt at all that the offshore oil industry is a male dominated industry. The Minister himself has referred to the excellent survey, Women in the North Sea Oil Industry, that was produced some time ago by the Equal Opportunities Commission. That survey underlined, as he has said, the fact that there were hardly any women working in this industry. However, there are now increasing numbers of women, particularly those qualifying as geologists, who see the offshore oil industry as a career opportunity. There is no doubt also that they are not getting these opportunities, and I wonder whether the order is sufficient to enable them to do so even now.
The report of the Equal Opportunities Commission ends with the two conclusions that:
"there are well educated and highly motivated women wishing to work offshore who are denied the opportunity to do so simply because they are women—and for no other reason"; and
"At a lower point in the occupation scale women are denied access to relatively well-paid work in offshore catering and from the opportunity to experience the work environment of the North Sea. They are denied this opportunity because they are women—andfor no other reason."
However, the reason that is often advanced by employers for not employing women is that there are no proper facilities for them—those are the points put forward by both the Scottish TUC and the TUC. They say that there are no toilet and washing facilities and so on, and that therefore the environment is not suitable for women. As the Minister has indicated, they are able to do so because of the existence of Section 7(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act.
I believe that as the order now stands it will still permit the use of this defence by employers. For that reason I believe that the order does not go far enough since it will not in practice result in equal opportunities being extended to women and the provisions of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts will not apply when it comes to it.
I suggest that the Minister takes serious account of what has been said. I do not wish to oppose the order because, as I have already said, I should not wish to give the impression that we are in any way opposed to the extension of the cover of the Acts to offshore employment. Quite the reverse is true. We are concerned to ensure that the extension really is an extension and that the rights that seem to be available in the order really will apply when it comes to the practical application.
I understand that the Norwegian industry, which has a relatively low female workforce—about 12 to 13 per cent.—provides appropriate facilities for both sexes as a matter of course. I do not see why our industry should not do so and why failure to do so should be used by employers under Section 7(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act as a reason for frustrating the intentions of the order. I very much fear that, unless some steps are taken to ensure it does not happen, that may well be the case. However, I do not wish, as I said earlier, to oppose either order.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for her acceptance of the order before us this afternoon. I shall just underline what I attempted to say in my opening remarks. In touching on the question of the number of women working in the

397
British sector of the North Sea, I regret it is a fact that there are no comprehensive statistics for the number of women employed offshore on the UK continental shelf on relevant activities. The only information that we have is that contained in the research prepared for the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1984. That research provided a best estimate that only about 0.1 per cent. of the workforce, or some 22,000 all told, were women. Therefore only about 25 were working offshore on a normal shift basis.
I am aware that in the past women have perhaps been discouraged from applying for those jobs but I believe that the order will remove some of the obstacles. I am equally aware of the concern that the Trades Union Congress and indeed the ASTMS, of which the noble Baroness is the general secretary, expressed that employers might evade the new legislation and might see the suggestion that Section 7 should not apply to offshore employees.
However, I must say that Section 7(2) defence will certainly not permit an employer to disregard the requirements of the Sex Discrimination Act. All it does is to enable an employer to argue before an industrial tribune that the particular circumstances of the workplace and the employer's circumstances, including of course financial resource, are such that it would be unreasonable to require the provision of sleeping accommodation and sanitary facilities for both sexes.
The employer who deliberately seeks to use that section to evade the legislation will run a grave risk of a decision against him, which could involve him in paying not only compensation but also costs.
It would be an unwelcome, but perhaps more than that, an unnecessary departure to single out a particular industry for exclusion from the section. The noble Baroness referred to the Norwegian law and practice, but the Norwegian law does not contain a provision such as that in Section 7(2)(c). Again, I refer to the report prepared in 1984 for the Equal Opportunities Commission. The report pointed out that in Norway there are not quite the same—how can I put it?—cultural restraints on shared accommodation as there are in the United Kingdom. Despite that legislation in Norway. it is interesting to note that women working offshore remain concentrated in what some might have described as women's traditional occupations. Therefore I do not believe that even with that legislation or the absence of it in the United Kingdom, women have been denied opportunities nor will they be denied opportunities in the higher echelons.
In conclusion, perhaps I may simply reiterate that while the numbers of employees affected may not be very great the orders represent a quite significant milestone in the progress towards full equality which I am quite sure your Lordships will accept.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Race Relations (Offshore Employment) Order 1987
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move.
398
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th May be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Personal Files Bill
2.20 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is the proud boast of the Liberal Party, which is enshrined in the preamble to its constitution, that its aim is to create a society,
"which in all things sets freedom first."
Therefore noble Lords will not be surprised to see a Bill of this sort coming from the Alliance Benches dealing with what, I believe, is one of the most compelling elements of individual freedom; namely, freedom of information and particularly the freedom of individuals to have the right to know what has been recorded in documents about themselves and, furthermore, the right to correct any wrong or inaccurate information.
But I hasten to say that this is not a party Bill. It was introduced as a Private Member's measure by my honourable friend the Member in another place for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, who had the good fortune to come high in the ballot for Private Member's Motions. It does him great credit that he chose this subject. It also has had all-party support throughout the length and breadth of its discussions in another place. I have every hope that it will receive similar support in your Lordships' House today.
It has also had a very considerable amount of support from organisations outside. I have here a list of people who were supporters of the original Bill, which includes organisations such as the Association of County Councils Policy Committee, the Association of Distict Councils, Scottish Local Health Councils, the British Association of Social Workers, the Child Poverty Action Group, the College of Health, the Howard League, and so on. So it has had very wide support in the country as well, and indeed by the time it got to Second Reading in another place more than 140 organisations had said that they supported the Bill.
The principle which this Bill deals with is already enshrined in legislation where computer records are involved, and from November this year the Data Protection Act will, as noble Lords know, allow individuals to seek personal information held about them on computers. It has therefore been an anomaly that similar information held in ordinary files does not come within the terms of that Act. Indeed—and your Lordships will remember that this was raised when the Data Protection Act was being discussed—it provides something of a loophole through which people can get away from the terms of that Act. So for the first time this Bill which is before your Lordships today extends this right to cover manually held records.
Unfortunately it only covers a few classes of records—far fewer than the Bill when it was originally drafted covered. I shall come back to that in a few minutes. The main benefits of the Bill are that it

399
enables people to keep themselves fully informed about steps that an authority is taking in relation to them. It provides the basis for a more equal relationship between the individual and the authority or professionals with whom he or she deals and it provides the opportunity to detect errors—I believe that this is one of the most important aspects of the Bill—which might otherwise be acted on by officials who have no direct knowledge of the person involved.
One of the classic cases—it is a question of medical records, which are not now covered in this Bill, but it is a good example of the sort of thing that can happen —was that of Helen Mann, who is a 26 year-old chef. She was astonished to find that her GP accused her of being a heroin addict. She did not realise at first that he was serious and she became anxious when she found that errors had been passed to him in the medical notes of her former GP. It took her many months to discover that a drug addict had been impersonating her at her former GP's practice.
Included in the notes were four references to drug addiction and another reference to a hepatitis episode at Charing Cross Hospital. Fortunately, she was able to show that at that time she had not been in the country. As a result, she was recently allowed access to the records. However, she expressed anger at the fact that it took 10 months and 17 letters before she was able to find out what was causing the problem. That is one occasion when errors were detected. There are many cases involving medical and other records where people do not know that errors have been put into files of which they know nothing.
The other benefit is that the Bill is a safeguard against poorly thought out or unfair comments being recorded. If we were talking here about doctors or social workers putting their own private thoughts about someone into a private diary, I should not have much objection. But information may go down on files which, although they are confidential, may be passed on to other people in the discipline. Mistakes keep on coming up year after year. There is no way in which they can be corrected.
Indeed, many local authorities, doctors and employers have voluntarily opened records. They have found that course to be beneficial, first, because it signifies that they have nothing to hide and that they are doing their best either to provide a service or to ensure that individuals are being fairly treated. But, secondly, that action dispels unjustified suspicion which arises when people do not get treatment, which is very important both in the social services and in the medical profession. People often assume that they are being unfairly treated when in fact delay is caused by a long waiting list or some such factor. Some authorities report that, although people often ask to see their records out of suspicion, they go away impressed by what they discover.
Perhaps I may now deal with the scope of the Bill. As it stands, it covers local authority housing and social service records, although, as I said, earlier it covered a wider range. Although education records are not included on the face of the Bill, a practical agreement which accompanies the Bill includes an undertaking by the Government to make a comparable provision for access to education records under
400
powers which already exist. There are assurances, as noble Lords will know from the debates in another place, which reaffirm the Government's position.
I shall give your Lordships a few examples of situations covering both housing records and social services records. The first is contained in a letter to my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood. The person writing it says,
"I would like you to know that I have been trying to gain access to my files from the council for the last 15 years and have been told that it is not council policy to let me see them. I tried to see them and had an interview with the Housing Manager who said as far as he was concerned the accusations… were factual but I have no right to find out what accusations were made… I was served notice to quit my council house… I was given no opportunity to defend myself… I want to see the allegations made against me… I am nearing 70 years old and want to live the rest of my life with an easy mind".
That seems to me to encapsulate the problem so far as housing records are concerned. There is another case which is going in front of the European Commission. Mr. Gaskin, who has spent the bulk of his life in the care of the Liverpool social services department claims that his traumatic experience in numerous foster homes and institutions has left him a psychological wreck and as such he argues that the Liverpool social services department was in breach of its obligation to provide him with the appropriate level of protection and care.
That is a well known case which has been written up in a book published in 1983. It was followed by an interview with the BBC and a considerable number of discussion programmes on television. The fight is continuing and the case is currently before the European Commission. The case is raised under Articles 8 and 10. It alleges that he is unable to have access to his case file for the purpose of providing how badly he was treated. I make no judgment whatever on this matter because it is before the commission. I do not know the facts of the case but it seems that problems would have been averted if the person had been able to have access to his file.
The Bill is a purely enabling Bill, and the right of access is dependent upon regulations which are to be made. Those regulations may also provide for authorities to correct records which contain inaccurate information; for appeals to be made against decisions to deny access or to refuse to correct records; for authorities to charge a fee up to a prescribed maximum for giving access; and for some exemptions from access. The question of exemptions is critical. All those who advocate the right of access accept that certain restrictions need to be imposed, particularly to protect the rights of third parties.
Originally, the full Bill spelled out the exemptions in detail. They would have included the need to protect the privacy of third parties and the identities of members of the public or family speaking to an authority in confidence; the safety of third parties; the interests of a child, in cases where a parent sought access to the child's record; and the subject of the record in circumstances where immediate access could be harmful. The Bill proposed that in such circumstances access could be deferred for a period to allow the disclosure to take place after, rather than during, a period of acute disturbance.
Although, precisely, the right solution may not have been found in each case, the exemptions as originally

401
framed were narrowly defined in terms of the particular interest that each was intended to safeguard. It is now hoped that departments, when they come to issue their own regulations, will resist any temptation to define these exemptions in very broad terms which would allow authorities to withhold information merely because they felt that disclosure would cause embarrassment or because they would find it difficult to justify what had been written.
As it now stands, the Bill is only a small part of what was originally proposed. We, and others in your Lordships' House, regret that the Bill now deals only with local authority records. The original proposal would have included records held by central government, as well as employment and medical records.
As regards medical records, I know that a number of doctors agree with the need for this provision but I have received a letter from the British Medical Association which it has asked me to mention. The letter states:
"Although health records do not form part of this Bill, no doubt the issue of access to medical records will be raised.… We would like those taking part in the debate to know that we are currently discussing this issue with the Home Office and the DHSS. Because the DHSS and doctors can see problems as well as advantages regarding patients having access to their medical records, we feel it would be helpful at this stage if these discussions were allowed to continue in advance of any legislation being considered".
Far be it from me to wish to put an end to discussions, but I hope that at the end of the day the difficulties are not allowed to outweigh the benefits and that in the very near future similar legislation can be enacted relating to medical records.
There remains a considerable amount of support for the measure, watered down as it may be. One of the penalties of having a Private Member's measure going through the parliamentary system is that compromises have often to be made in order to get the measure on to the statute book. In view of that, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading today and that it may not be necessary to amend it. It is my hope that we may get the Bill through in time to reach the statute book before certain coming events cast their shadows too deeply across it.
In Committee in the other place, the Minister of State, Home Office, Mr. David Waddington, gave a series of undertakings on behalf of his ministerial colleagues concerning the regulations upon which the Bill depends. One is grateful for those undertakings. They are crucial, because without them the promised regulations will not come into force and therefore no right of access will come into force.
As I understand it, the undertakings are for social work and educational records in England and Wales and housing, social work and educational records in Scotland. The Government have said that regulations will be made, and that they will use their best endeavours to make them by the end of 1988. The regulations on educational records will be made under the powers in the Education Act 1980 and equivalent powers in Scottish legislation.
The one notable exception from the list, short as it is, is housing records in England and Wales. So far, the Department of the Environment has not given a 100
402
per cent. commitment that it will definitely make regulations on housing records. I urge the Government to give that undertaking as firmly and as quickly as possible. Having given the Minister some indication that I should be raising that point, I hope that he can give us some further reassurance today.
Nevertheless, Mr. Waddington said in Committee in another place that although the Department of the Environment cannot say with 100 per cent. certainty that it will make regulations, he could assure the Committee that the likelihood of it failing to do so was remote. That is "government speak", and occasionally we should like things a little firmer on what is after all not a Draconian measure.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that although in a letter to Mr. Kirkwood from Mr. John Patten the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction he continues to say that discussions are necessary with the various local authority associations, it is now more than two years since Sir George Young answered a parliamentary question in which he said:
"My Department has today written to local authority associations, to organisations representing tenants' interests, and to other interested bodies, to seek their views about how such information can be made more readily available. Public sector tenants sometimes believe that their landlords' files contain misleading personal information. In this area, and subject to proper safeguards, they ought to be able to check that mistakes are not being made. A copy of the consultation paper is in the Library."—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/84; c. 238.]
The fact that consultations are continuing gives one some grounds for concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us further reassurance. I hope that I have said enough to explain what the Bill is about and the need for it. I ask your Lordships to support the principle and the detail of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Tordoff.)
2.38 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his able introduction of this Private Member's Bill into your Lordships' House. Of course we all believe that it is right that people should not have allegations, comments or information about them on files which is not true and which they have no way of countering.
Inevitably, I talk about the social services.. As your Lordships are aware, social services have under their remit the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped under the Mental Health Acts, the chronically sick and disabled under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, children and families under the Childrens and Children and Young Persons Acts, care and services to the elderly under the Health Service and Public Health Acts, and of course families in trouble.
Every social worker knows that so far as possible and so far as practicable it is right that every person with whom they deal—most of them are the vulnerable in our society—must be dealt with with integrity, dignity and complete honesty. Perhaps a little further consideration of the Bill may be necessary. I am not against the Bill but I feel that certain matters have not yet been covered. I speak in particular for the Association of Directors of Social Services.

403
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, talked about exemptions and third parties. In the social services it is recognised more and more that no one department can give a service to the vulnerable. It needs to be a number of departments. Not only that but it needs very often to be people who are outside local government, and that is the voluntary sector. On the question of information which is given by a third party, if we do not have this co-operation between various departments and people outside the department, and if we do not have a safeguard for third parties giving information which they consider should be confidential, we may be doing a disservice to the very people whom we want to serve.
Perhaps I may give one example. It may be known to somebody that a man has been accused of and proved guilty of offences against children. He applies for a job working with children. Yet the person who knows this fact feels unable to divulge it unless they know that the information will be confidential. This is particularly the situation with the police. I have the greatest admiration for the way the police safeguard the information that they have. But unless the police feel that the information that they give will be treated confidentially, then they may feel unable to give it. At the end of the day that will be a disservice to the very people whom we seek to serve.
The noble Lord has talked about exemptions and the mechanism of appeal. In my experience there were examples of facts that one knew which were not in the real interests—and I say that with deep feelings—of the cases concerned. I could cite many examples, in particular where children were concerned. If parents want to know everything about a child, and those parents do not always have discretion in what they do or do not tell the child, they may easily tell him or her facts which are damaging.
While in principle I support this Bill, I think that there is much that has to be discussed. The social services are completely dependent on the medical profession. I know that when one was taking a case to court and wanted to decide which home to put an old person in, one was absolutely dependent on the doctors and their reports, and rightly so. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, there are debates taking place currently. We all know that that is so because we have all had the same letter from the British Medical Association. I hope that in these debates the position will be discussed with regard to the social services and medical reports received from doctors. Do we keep the medical report separate from the social file, or do we put it on the file? If so, we are then breaking confidentiality with regard to the doctors. In the service of the vulnerable we must also have complete integrity concerning those we work with and how we use the information we are given. I do not believe that this has been completely thought through. The association of directors also feels that this has not been thought out properly and needs further discussion.
There is one last question I wish to ask. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, may be able to correct me, because I may not have read all the Acts I should have read. I am not sure about age. As a children's officer and as a director of social services, I sometimes had children coming to me of 12, 13 or 14 years asking to
404
see their files. There is a school in the north, Aycliffe School, where when a case conference is held both the children and the parents are present. Very little is withheld. But in certain cases it would be very damaging to a child, particularly in adolescence, to see a file which stated exactly the kind of life that the parents, the mother, the father, or both, lived.
I always used to try to tell every child going out of care at the age of 18 what their background was, but there are certain things which children and adolescents particularly cannot tolerate. It would be to their disadvantage to know the details and to see their files. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell me whether there is an age limit.
I support the principles behind the Bill, but I believe that further discussion is required on a number of the points I have raised.
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has given us a very full and clear explanation of what the Bill is all about. He leaves me just to make a few comments about it. I welcome this Bill as a small but very worthwhile step towards giving people the right to know what information is held about them by public authorities. What gives me a personal attachment to it is that I introduced a debate on this subject on 6th November last year. I was therefore very gratified when the Access to Personal Files Bill was introduced as a Private Member's Bill in another place.
I first reiterate the fundamental beliefs on which this Bill is based; namely, that the right to see personal files is an important way of increasing people's control over their own lives. It will enable them to learn more about what is happening to them and give them the opportunity to take a more active part in discussions with authorities and the professions about their own affairs. It is also a safeguard against the possibility that records will contain inaccurate information or even unfair or prejudiced comment.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has made a very good case proving this and has given some striking examples. I remember that after my Unstarred Question I received many letters giving me some heartbreaking examples of how things could have been very different if the people in question had been allowed to check up on their own records.
While I welcome the Bill I also regret the fact that it is so limited in its scope. Were it not rather late on a Friday afternoon—and a very beautiful sunny afternoon at that—I should have been tempted to reminisce for a moment about the high hopes that so many of us had about promoting the cause of freedom of information in those early days when the Bill was first being dreamt up. However, as we all know, during the passage of the Bill in another place the Government made it clear that they would not accept a measure which included a right of access to medical or employment records or to government benefit records.
As a result those records, though initially covered, have had to be dropped. The absence of those, particularly medical records, as has already been said by the noble Lord and by the noble Baroness, will disappoint

405
many people. The level of support for the right of access to those has been striking. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned the leading consumer, voluntary and professional bodies which declared their support for a legal right of access to health records. I too received the encouraging letter from the British Medical Association. The very fact that it wrote to us shows its strong commitment to continue with discussions and pressure on the principle that people should be allowed to see their records.
The Government have said that they want to encourage greater access on a non-statutory basis but I have no doubt that pressure for legislation will continue. I hope it will not be long before we have the opportunity to debate a more all-encompassing measure. Without wishing to make a party point from these Benches, I should like to point out that in recent days the Labour Party has put forward proposals for a patients' charter which would most certainly include giving patients a right of access to their medical records.
I have one or two reservations about the Bill as it now stands which I should like to put forward. I do so not to seek to impede its passage. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, it certainly needs to put its skates on. I should like to record these few reservations as representing the disappointment that many of us feel. First, there are the exemptions from access. Naturally there must be some to protect the privacy and safety of third parties; and no doubt these will be laid down in the regulations which the various departments will introduce. I hope the exemptions will be limited to those that are strictly necessary. If departments are too free with let-out clauses it could undermine the purpose of the measure.
For example, in 1985 the DHSS issued a consultation paper on access to computerised social work records which suggested that one category of exempt information should be social workers' provisional options. What is a provisional option? The department suggested that an opinion or an assessment would be regarded as provisional and therefore not accessible to the person concerned until after a decison based on it had been taken. Surely the purpose of opening up records should be to allow people to participate in decisions affecting them. That proposal would have the opposite effect by keeping the information from people until it was too late to influence a decision.
My second concern relates to charges. The Bill envisages that local authorities could charge a fee for allowing someone to see his or her records. I have serious worries about this aspect. Anything other than the most nominal of fees will effectively deter people from applying for records. This is not an area where a deterrent is needed. I doubt whether people will seek access to their records for any kind of trivial or flippant reason. They will want to see their records because they are anxious about a problem and hope that they will throw some light on it. They should not be discouraged from doing so by the imposition of high fees. Indeed a recent survey revealed that some local authorties are charging people as much as £.15 a time to inspect files and background papers which they are now entitled to see under the Local Government
406
(Access to Information) Act 1985. This is quite wrong and I hope the maximum prescribed fee set by the regulations will be a low one and that in practice local authorities will decide not to levy any fee at all.
Finally, there is the question of whether regulations in all the areas covered by the Bill will be made at all. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, brought up the example of the Department of the Environment, which has been unwilling to give a commitment to make regulations, as indeed have other departments. The Department of Education and Science has said that it will make regulations on education records. The Department of Health and Social Security has said that it will make regulations on social work records. If it can be done for social work records, which by their very nature are likely to contain information about sensitive matters and vulnerable individuals, it is hard to understand why the much more straightforward question of housing records should be causing the Department of the Environment so much difficulty. I am pleased to see that the Scottish Office has undertaken to make regulations on housing records in Scotland. So it is rather intriguing to know what particular English problems the department anticipates in housing records south of the Border.
Despite a feeling of regret for what might have been, I hope that the Bill has a speedy passage on to the statute book. My reservations should not obscure the fact that the Bill is a worthwhile measure which will benefit many people. It will at least serve to enshrine the principle that people should have the right to know more about their own affairs, and perhaps it will prepare the way for many other freedom of information measures that I feel are strongly needed.
On the way here today, a rather striking analogy hit me. I was driving along behind a small Mini with a rather appealing sticker in the back which said, "When I grow up I am going to be a Rolls- Royce". I hope that this rather small Bill might one day grow up to be a veritable Rolls-Royce of a Bill which represents true freedom of information for people who need it.
2.56 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for explaining the history of this measure. The Bill, as first presented by its sponsors in the other place, embraced a much wider range of records, including those held by central government, local authorities and the private sector. It also contained some very complex and detailed provisions on the procedures to be followed in granting access to records. At that stage, the Government made it very clear that they were not opposed to the basic principle behind the Bill as to the benefits for an individual in obtaining access to records of personal information held about himself.
The Goverment themselves endorsed that principle in the Data Protection Act 1984 which gives an individual a statutory right to receive a copy of any computer record held on him. We saw it as natural that computer records should have the first priority because of the ease with which they can be manipulated or disclosed to third parties, and also because of the importance to our businessmen that we should implement the European Convention on Data Protection. The right of access to computer records

407
under the Data Protection Act is due to come into force in November this year.
When faced with the inital version of this Bill, we came, with some reluctance, to the conclusion that now would not be an appropriate time to extend the right of access to a wide range of manual records because of the large bureaucratic and financial burden it would place on record holders, particularly at a time when they were preparing to shoulder the burdens imposed by the Data Protection Act. For that reason, we suggested that the Bill might be limited to a small number of areas in which developments were already planned and progress might be made within a reasonable timescale. After lengthy discussion and negotiation with the sponsors of the Bill, all of which were held in a friendly and constructive atmosphere, we managed to emerge with the solution that is before the House today.
The present Bill provides for a regulation-making power imposing obligations on local authorities to provide access to records in the two fields of housing and social work. In addition, the Government have promised to make progress with new regulations providing access to education records, using the existing powers under the Education Act. In all three fields of housing, social work and education, we have given a specific undertaking to use our best endeavours to make these regulations by the end of next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has raised the question of the undertaking given in respect of housing records in England and Wales. It was made clear in the debates in another place that the undertaking on these records was slightly different from the unconditional guarantee given in respect of the other records to which this Bill will apply. Given that consultations have to be undertaken with representatives of the local authorities concerned, and these must be genuine, the Department of the Environment did not feel able to give a categorical assurance that the regulations will be made.
It has been made very clear, however, that difficulty would arise only if the department were convinced, at the end of the consultation process, that there was no practicable way of making the regulations. The department regards the possibility of reaching that situation as remote. This may not fully satisfy the noble Lord, but I hope that it will go some of the way to reassuring him. I would also tell the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that following consultation it is not now proposed that social workers' provisional judgments should be exempt from access.
The Bill now before us therefore constitutes a significant step forward in the granting of access to personal records. We recognise, of course, that it does not go as far as the sponsors and some other supporters of the Bill might have wished, but I think it represents an honourable compromise between the views of both sides and that the sponsors can claim an important achievement in having taken this first statutory step in the field of access to manual records. I am therefore very happy to say that the Government are able to commend the present Bill to the House and that we hope it will achieve a speedy passage through its remaining stages.
3 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and to the two noble Baronesses who have spoken in this debate. I should like to answer two points that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. The matter is not entirely in the hands of the sponsors of the Bill because this must be achieved by regulation. Clearly the Government and Secretary of State, in making the regulations, will take into account the needs of the professionals as well as the needs of those whose files are kept. That balance must be right and we must be sure that it does not always come down on the side of the professional. It is not always in the interests of professionals that they should have complete confidentiality because very often they receive the wrong information. The right of the individual to see what is being said about him or her must be balanced so that it can be corrected. Even though it may be something damaging, if it is correct then it is perfectly right and proper that it should remain on the file. At least people then know why judgments are being made in respect of them.
I accept that in certain cases it may be difficult for people to accept that sort of judgment. However, the regulations must provide for periods of time where proper counselling can take place. I am sure that those in the social services with whom the noble Baroness associates are well skilled in that matter. I know that they are extremely busy people and do not want to take on additional burdens, but at the end of the day their clients will be the better for it. So far as age is concerned, the same point will apply: it will depend on the regulations which are laid down. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her general support for the principles of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, is to be thanked for her support and for paving the way for this Bill in the speeches she has previously made in this House. I agree with her reservations that the exemptions must be restricted to the minimum possible. When regulations are laid before your Lordships' House I think that it is incumbent upon us all to challenge them if they are too extensive. We do not want to provide room for coaches and horses to be driven through the regulations.
As regards charges, I was horrified, as was the noble Baroness, to see the figures of recent charges made by local authorities for access granted under earlier Acts. I liked the reference made by the noble Baroness to the possibility of having a Rolls-Royce of a Bill later on. I hope that when that time comes we can all be shareholders.
I thank the Minister for his acceptance of the Bill. We are still worried about the housing record and, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, it seems odd that Scotland is a different case from England. I do not think that the Minister has explained the difference between the problems in Scotland and England. Nevertheless, the assurances have been repeated. We are assured that the chance of anything going wrong is remote. I think that what we have asked for, and what we have received, is a feeling that the Government are determined to make these regulations sensible and make them work. After all, that is what is behind the Bill. I believe that in passing this Bill today, as I hope we will, we shall take another small step

409
down the road to the freedom of information and the freedom of individuals. It is on that basis that I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Banking Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes past three o'clock.