Lords Sitting of 13 May 1991

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

Product Development Risks
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of any case in which use has been made of the defence of development risks provided for in Section (4) (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as far as I am aware, no cases involving a claim for damages under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 have yet come before the courts. Therefore the use of the development risk defence has not arisen.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for that reply. In the light of the information it contains, do the Government still take the view that this defence is absolutely crucial to the prosperity of British industry notwithstanding the fact that the German drugs industry, for example, seems to manage perfectly well without it? Have the Government yet resolved their differences with the European Commission about the way in which, contrary to the decision taken in your Lordships' House, the Act implemented the provision in the directive?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The Commission has expressed concern about the way in which the UK implemented the directive. We have responded in full to the Commission's reasoned opinion of October 1990. It is now for the Commission to decide whether or not it wishes to pursue the matter through the European Court. The directive came into effect only in March 1988 and applies to goods first supplied after that date. It is pet haps not surprising that no cases have yet reached the courts when one considers the period of time involved where a product has been put into circulation, has proved to be defective, has caused injury and the claimant has taken legal advice.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that during the passage of the Consumer Protection Act through your Lordships' House an amendment was passed which reflected precisely the words of the directive? The amendment was reversed in another place after two minutes' debate. That happened, I believe, after the 1987 general election had been called. Will the Government now say whether they are in favour of the words of the directive as passed in your Lordships' House and of the amendment passed in your Lordships' House, or whether they still abide by their decision to reverse that amendment in another place?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are in favour of the words contained in the Consumer Protection Act as it was passed. The wording was chosen to reflect more closely the meaning of the directive when transposed into UK law. We believe it made the defence easier to understand for both the courts and businesses involved.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to return to the point. I must however ask the noble Viscount, with respect, whether he is not aware that that was not the argument the Government put forward at the time. There was no question of the amendment passed by this House being out of order in any sense or failing properly to translate into UK law the words of the directive. It was because the Government took a quite different view of the effect of what might be contained in the then Bill that they reversed the amendment. Will the Government now take a different view of the matter?
Viscount Astor: No, my Lords. The Government take the same view they took previously. Section 1(1) of the Consumer Protection Act states that Part I of the Act is intended to implement the EC directive on product liability. Therefore, in any dispute over the wording, the UK courts would be bound to interpret the legislation in accordance with the meaning of the directive. Member states of the EC are, of course, free to adopt wording in national legislation that is different to the wording of a directive provided that the objective of the directive is achieved.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as this matter is almost certain to go to the Court of Justice would it not be better to wait until that court has dealt with the matter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. We await the reaction of the European Commission.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount can clarify something he said which is rather puzzling. Surely if a case comes before the courts in this country, the courts are obliged simply to interpret the Act that is on the statute book. Am I right in saying that the courts cannot say that the Act is meant to represent the directive and therefore they may consult the directive? I speak as a layman. However, am I not right in saying that a court in this country must simply interpret the Act that is before it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. No doubt he recalls Section 1(1) of the Consumer Protection Act which refers to the fact that Part I of the Act is intended to implement the directive.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that many people take the view—I do not wish to pursue the matter in the light of what has just been said—that the Act does not implement the directive? Will the Government seriously consider taking an initiative and doing away with the defence altogether when the directive comes up for review in 1995?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have grasped the initiative in this country. I know of the noble Lord's great knowledge and expertise in the area. This country was the first to implement the directive before the required date. France, Belgium, Ireland and Spain have still not done so.

NHS: Number of Medically Qualified Staff
2.42 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reductions they expect in the numbers of medically qualified staff in National Health Service hospitals during the coming year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, we do not expect reductions in the overall number of doctors in National Health Service hospitals. The Government are committed to a supply of doctors which is adequate to meet demand.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, the Question was not intended to relate to doctors alone, although strictly speaking, as the noble Baroness said, medical staff means doctors. However, doctors would not get very far without nurses, scientists and paramedics. Will there be no reduction in the numbers of people who assist doctors? Is she also aware that it is now 10 years since the Black Committee reported that poverty is the biggest enemy of good health in this country? Is she further aware that with unemployment, homelessness and lack of housing on the increase, poverty will increase and therefore ill health will increase? Will the question of dealing with poverty, which creates ill health, be taken into account in considering the future of the health service?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in the first place the Government are directing all their policies to ensuring that poverty does not increase. However, in saying that I recognise the need for co-ordination in government policy. I point to community care and the preventive health approach, both of which take account of the various factors involved, as the way forward. Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to say again for the record that we currently have more doctors than ever before and more nurses than ever before and that more patients are being treated than ever before.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, since we are talking numbers, can the noble Baroness say how many medically qualified staff we have now compared with 10 years ago?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if in speaking of medically qualified staff the noble Lord means doctors, which is the recognised interpretation of the phrase, in the United Kingdom the number of doctors working in the NHS has risen from 76,442 in 1979 to 89,475 in 1989, an increase of 17 per cent.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the National Health Service's record regarding staff increases over the past 10 years goes even further than she has just told us and we have had an additional 8,000 nurses, 15,000 dentists and 5,000 hospital doctors over the past 10 years? That is not a bad record.
Lord Ennals: My Lords—
Noble Lords: The answer!
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for providing additional figures. He said 8,000 nurses. The figure is more like 80,000 nurses.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am so sorry to have interrupted the noble Baroness. Is not the Question about the future? What is the Minister's view of the report of the Universities Funding Council of 8th May that the situation in the main teaching hospitals, particularly in London, is now:
"sufficiently serious as to raise doubts about their future ability to deliver a viable educational programme unless urgent corrective action is taken";
and that if the teaching hospitals fail to attract enough work not only will hundreds of jobs be in peril but the training of doctors will also be jeopardised? Does she consider that a party political statement, as the BMA's is alleged to be, or does she think that there is some truth in it?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we obviously need the co-operation of the medical profession in all of this. As regards Achieving a Balance, that represents the agreed policy on manpower planning between the National Health Service, the joint consultants committee and the Government. So far as concerns medical school intake and teaching, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently announced that a new committee will be set up to examine overall requirements for numbers of medical staff.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister say what the Government's reaction is to the report published last week?
Baroness Hooper: No, my Lords.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to check with Guy's and Lewisham, where the hospital trust has recently announced a cut of 10 per cent. in all grades, despite other figures that we have been given? Will she also check with Charing Cross and Westminster hospitals, which have issued a statement that more than 435 jobs will be lost, including doctors, consultants, technicians, paramedics and scientists? That seems to conflict with what the Minister has said. Ought these matters not to be examined? Above all, should we not ensure that those powerful and well-equipped hospitals are easily accessible to those who for another term face the possibility of being poverty stricken?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, all of the trusts which have announced any programme of reductions have made it clear that the reductions in staff will be made at all levels and wherever possible by natural wastage.

1353
So far as concerns the teaching hospitals, it must be the case that patients should not have to move to hospitals for the convenience of those who are learning to become doctors. It must be for the doctors to move where the patients are. If that means out of central London then that is what it means.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, this is a terribly important matter. The BMA complained about the fact that people are being sent to hospitals where there is nowhere to put them except in the corridors. They cannot even send them back home. It is a serious question for both the Government and the department. Can these matters at least be looked at?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reason for our comprehensive set of reforms, which has just been introduced, is to make the National Health Service more efficient.

CAP: Cost of East German Membership
2.48 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much they estimate the United Kingdom will pay towards the cost of absorbing East German agriculture into the common agricultural policy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Community budget for agricultural market support in 1991 was increased in December by?916 million in order to meet the costs of extending the common agricultural policy to East Germany. It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the additional costs involved for the United Kingdom, but in 1991 the United Kingdom is expected to contribute some 11.7 per cent. of the Community budget.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply and I welcome the dramatic changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe during the last two years. Recognising that this is a difficult subject, should not the German Government meet a large part of that bill because they promoted unification and have benefited politically from it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, from the date of unification the CAP applied in East Germany as in other parts of the Community. The costs of agricultural support are therefore met from the Community budget in the normal way. However, the costs of disposing of stocks accumulated under the previous regime—for example, the costs; of export refunds on exports of agricultural products under contracts agreed by the old GDR—are paid for by Germany.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that East Germany was able to come in through the back-door without any delay and without any veto by any other country? Is it not also a fact that the
1354
Community's agricultural budget is already overdrawn and that, because of the extra£900 million which the noble Baroness mentioned, the Community will run out of money earlier than it would otherwise do? Can we have the Government's assurance that they will not agree to a further increase in the Community's own resources through additional VAT contributions?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is no case for increasing the budget. The 1991 budget was increased to take account of the estimated costs resulting from German unification and that increase is within the guideline. Those estimated costs have not changed. It is other factors such as continuing over-production, falling consumption and weak world markets which are leading to budget problems. Those are precisely the types of over-expenditure that the budget discipline arrangements, including the guideline, were designed to curb.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, so long as the budget guideline on agricultural expenditure is respected, the overall amount paid by the United Kingdom cannot be affected although the division between East and West may be? Does she not therefore agree that it is vital that the budget guideline should be respected?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I entirely agree with both my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that under the present arrangements the common agricultural policy contributions are of such a nature that Germany and the United Kingdom are net contributors to the budget; that France, on the other hand, receives as much out of the CAP as it puts in; and that the remaining nine member states receive more out of the CAP than they put in? Despite the words used elsewhere in the Chamber this afternoon, is it not a fact that, if that balance is disturbed by reason of Germany taking out rather more than it currently puts in, whatever one says about the British contribution in percentage terms, in money terms it is likely to be a much larger sum?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have two answers. I do not know which to give the noble Lord, but I shall try the second one. It is not possible to give a figure for the UK share of the cost of the CAP. The UK contributes to the EC budget as a whole, not to parts of the budget. Moreover, the UK's contribution to the budget is reduced by the abatement—£2,367 million in 1991—paid by the 11 other member states to reduce our overall share. That cannot realistically be allocated to the different parts of the budget.
Noble Lords: Try the other answer!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in for a penny, in for a pound. The United Kingdom contributes to the cost of the CAP, which applies in East Germany now that it is part of the Community, but the same applies to other member states. Germany's contribution to the EC budget automatically increased when East Germany was absorbed into the Community.

1355
Germany remains the largest contributor to the total budget, paying about three times the UK's contribution. I hope that your Lordships are satisfied.

East Timor
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to promote the implementation of United Nations resolutions with respect to East Timor.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we support the efforts of the UN Secretary General to promote a dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia leading to a settlement which takes into account the interests of the East Timorese people.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but perhaps he will answer two further questions. First, given the fact that 100,000 people—a sixth of the population—have lost their lives since the illegal occupation of East Timor by the Indonesians in 1975 and given that British arms sales have contributed to sustaining the presence of Indonesia in East Timor, does not the Minister think that it is about time that we reviewed our arms sales policy towards the Indonesian armed services? Secondly, will the Minister say whether, in view of the Amnesty reports on human rights violations, he took up that matter on his recent visit to Djakarta?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answer to the second question is yes. On the first question, the number of deaths is not known. The noble Baroness quoted a figure which has been mentioned before, but many of those deaths were in the earlier stages of the Indonesian enforcement of its rule in East Timor. More recently, there has been a great improvement. Even more recently, the ICRC has been allowed in and certain excesses by the army have been dealt with.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, on the question of arms sales to Indonesia, is it not a fact that, if she did not buy from this country, she would buy from someone else?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, all countries have a sovereign right under the United Nations Charter to secure the means of their own self-defence. Therefore, my noble friend is probably right.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will disregard the supplementary question asked by his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and with which the House must disagree. However, does he agree that the Indonesian Government have waged a cruel war against the East Timorese against the resolutions of the United Nations? Does he agree that Her Majesty's Government have indicated on several occasions that they are in favour of self-determination for the East Timorese? In those circumstances, how can he
1356
possibly justify the sale of arms to Indonesia? Can he say whether, he raised that matter with the Indonesian Government when he was in Djakarta recently and can he say what their reaction was?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we ought to put the sales of arms in perspective. There has not been a great volume of sales of arms, but I reiterate that all countries have a sovereign right under the United Nations Charter to secure the means of their own self-defence. I therefore think that my noble friend is probably right: if a country wishes to buy equipment of one kind or another, it will shop around the world markets and so acquire it. I reiterate that I raised the matter in Djakarta. I spoke about it to the Foreign Minister, Mr. Alatas, and the other Ministers that I met. I also saw members of the ICRC with whom I discussed the situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, but what was their reaction to the noble Earl's representations to them? Is the noble Earl saying that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of the sale of arms to a country which is waging an unjust war against a small country of 600,000 people, against all the principles and decisions of the United Nations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my concern was very much with the human rights side of the matter. We hope that the UN Secretary General will be able to solve the matter bilaterally with Indonesia and Portugal. It was the disintegration of the Portuguese colonial empire that led to the present unhappy situation and the move by Indonesia. I must tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that we take great care in any arms sales not to sell arms that might be used against civilian populations.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Question illustrates, not for the first time, the danger of passing resolutions that cannot be implemented? Is it not for the United Nations to take the initiative regarding the implementation of its resolutions rather than for the United Kingdom on its own?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree. This is very much a situation in which the United Kingdom is concerned about human rights, as it is worldwide. However, the actual details must be resolved with the UN Secretary General and bilaterally between Indonesia and Portugal.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister said, does he agree that he is justifying the sale of arms by other countries to the IRA?
The Earl of Caithness: No, certainly not, my Lords.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be

1357
adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour. In that event, the Second Reading of the Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Bill will be taken in the break.

Deer Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendments to this Bill have been set down and no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless therefore any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The scheduled offences]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("or Part III") and insert (", III or IV").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 26 and 27.
The Committee will be aware that the provisions conferring new powers to investigate terrorist finance which were added in the other place are now found in Clause 57 and Schedule 5 to the Bill. Clause 57 provides that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State may appoint a person other than a police officer to have certain powers of investigation. These powers are in the main set out in Schedule 5.
Experience in Northern Ireland and elsewhere has indicated that it will often be extremely difficult to obtain sufficient evidence against terrorist financiers for offences which specifically relate to their terrorist activities. But the experience is that such criminals and gangsters often fail to comply with their obligations under the general law of the land. The Committee may recall Mr. Capone was sentenced for tax evasion rather than the other violent crimes for which he was undoubtedly responsible. We believe that in the course of investigating terrorist finances authorised investigators are likely to uncover other crimes committed by the terrorists. Where there is sufficient evidence,
1358
prosecution ought to follow. But because of the nature of the defendant's activities, there would be a real risk of intimidation of jurors. That is why we propose that any offence arising out of the new powers of investigation should be a scheduled offence. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 4.
Whether an offence is or is not charged as a consequence of the use of the provisions in Clause 57 and Schedule 5 is a question of fact. Because the pre-trial procedures for scheduled and non-scheduled offences are different, it is necessary to have some mechanism for making clear at an early stage whether an offence involving finance is to be treated as a scheduled offence. That is why provision is made in Amendment No. 4 for an officer of the RUC not below the rank of superintendent to certify that as a matter of fact a particular offence is charged in consequence of a terrorist funds investigation.
While there is little doubt that by far the majority of offences arising out of the use of these new powers will be closely connected with the emergency, there is at least a theoretical possibility of an authorised investigator uncovering an offence which has nothing to do with the emergency. That is why the Attorney-General will be empowered to certify that an offence which has been uncovered in that way shall not be treated as a scheduled offence. His criteria for granting such a certificate will be the same as those which he applies when certifying-out those offences in Part I of Schedule 1 which are subject to note 1 in that part of the Bill.
We also propose—this is the effect of Amendments Nos. 26 and 27—that any such offence which has not been "certified out" should be a relevant offence for the purpose of the confiscation scheme in Part VII of the Bill.
These amendments will enable those involved in terrorist finance to be brought to justice without the risk of jury intimidation. The power to certify out is an important safeguard which will ensure that those whose offences are unconnected with the emergency will continue to be tried before a jury. I hope that the Committee will feel that that is practical and fair. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We very much welcome these four amendments and support them. The noble Lord spent some time explaining Amendment No. 4. In a sense that is a little unusual and perhaps the Minister could go further and explain precisely what will be the role of the police in determining whether or not an offence should be a scheduled offence.
As I understand it, the Government up to now have resisted giving the police a role in deciding whether an offence is to be a scheduled offence or not a scheduled offence. But as I read Amendment No. 4, the police will be given that role, subject to the Attorney-General certifying that the offence should not be treated as a scheduled offence. I listened carefully to the Minister and his words will have to be studied. But I wonder whether he can say any more which will throw light on the precise role of the police in determining whether or not an offence is to be treated as a scheduled offence.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord is absolutely right to ask the question. There has always been concern expressed whenever it has been suggested that the police might be involved in some way in the process of determining whether or not an offence should be scheduled. But we are dealing here with a matter of fact and not a matter of discretion. The effect of this part of the amendment is that where there is an offence which has become evident as a result of investigative powers under Clause 57 by the use of special investigators using powers which are given to them also in Schedule 5, we propose that any offence arising out of Clause 57 and Schedule 5 shall be a scheduled offence.
As I said, that is the effect of the Amendments Nos. 1 and 4. But the magistrates' court to which the case comes needs to know—from the point of view of considering bail, for instance—whether or not the offence is scheduled. If it is a scheduled offence the magistrates' court will not deal with a bail matter in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord knows. It is at that point that in this part of the Bill somebody is needed to certify whether the offence coming to the court is or is not a scheduled offence. At that point we have put in Amendment No. 4 which states that a senior RUC officer will certify—not as a matter of discretion but as a matter of fact—that the offence coming before the court arises because of an investigation under Clause 57 and Schedule 5. I hope that replies to the noble Lord's point.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps the Minister can go just a little further. Will there be an arrangement between the police and the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland whereby the police will consult with the Attorney-General and take guidance or steering from him before they decide that this is to be certified in?
Lord Belstead: Once again the noble Lord has every right to probe. We are in Committee. Therefore at this point if there is any matter that I ought to add or change I shall either try to put it right later or write to the noble Lord. However, I am fairly sure that the answer to the noble Lord's point is no. The Attorney-General is in the important judicial position of being able to certify out an offence. That position has existed since scheduled offences began.
It is important that I repeat the point that I made in my opening remarks. In order to bend over backwards to ensure that there is a safeguard, if, despite the fact that a financial offence has arisen because of an investigation under Clause 57 and Schedule 5, the Attorney-General finds that the offence has nothing to do with the emergency, it will be open to the Attorney-General to certify the offence out.
However, I may need to write to the noble Lord on this point. I should have thought that it would not be appropriate for the Attorney-General and the Royal Ulster Constabulary to be in communication on the certifying point about which the noble Lord asks me.
Lord Prys-Davies: I hope that I have made the point clear. Our concern is this. It seems to me that for the first time in connection with scheduled offences,
1360
the police are given a semi-judicial role. We shall have to study carefully what the Minister said and decide whether or not we need further clarification.
Lord Belstead: At the risk of being tedious, I do not believe that the noble Lord's final intervention is right. The police are being used as a channel of communication to tell the court that the offence arises because of an investigation under Clause 57 and Schedule 5. A senior police officer will tell the court that as a matter of fact and not as a matter of discretion.
Lord Prys-Davies: I take it that he will be a channel of communication from the Attorney-General's department to the magistrates' court.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Scheduled Offences]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 51, leave out line 44 and insert:
("(e) paragraph 25B of Schedule 4 (contravention of restraint orders.").
The noble Lord said: I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 36 and 49. Amendments Nos. 36 and 49 have the effect of creating new offences of contravening a restraint order granted under Schedule 4 to the Bill or Schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The amendments also provide that such offences shall be scheduled offences and relevant offences for the purposes of the confiscation provisions of the Bill. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
As the Committee will be aware, the purpose of restraint orders is simply to freeze assets so that those assets are available for forfeiture or confiscation in the event of a subsequent conviction. Such orders are normally granted by the High Court but because of the special difficulties that exist in Northern Ireland an amendment made in the other place provides that in certain closely defined circumstances the Secretary of State may grant such orders.
Breaches of a restraint order granted by a court would under the existing law be dealt with as contempt of court with the result that the maximum period of imprisonment is two years. As the Bill stands at present the same maximum penalty would be available for contravention of a Secretary of State restraint order.
I believe the Committee will fully understand that a maximum penalty of two years would not be adequate to deal with the deliberate flouting of such orders in cases involving terrorist finance. In other words, to be blunt, terrorists would move their money out before the money could be frozen. For that reason the maximum period of imprisonment for the new offences will be 14 years, as proposed in the amendment. That penalty is fully consistent with the no more serious offences which are set out in Clauses 53 and 54 of the Bill: that is, of assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related finance; or concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities.
However, it is right that only those who deliberately or recklessly flout such orders should be punished. The new offences accordingly include a defence that the person acted,
"with lawful authority or reasonable excuse".
Where that defence is relied on, it will be for the defendant to make it out only to the civil standard of proof en the balance of probabilities.
I contend that these amendments would both simplify and clarify the law, would rightly provide a statutory defence to protect the innocent, and would provide the courts with an adequate range of penalties with which to deal with persons convicted of the new offences relating to terrorist financing.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: Again we agree the amendment moved by the noble Lord and those amendments to which he spoke. However, I should like to have a further explanation of Amendment No. 36, which increases the penalty on indictment for contravention of a restraint order from a two year sentence to a 14 year sentence. I hope that the Minister will agree on consideration that we should have an explanation as to why 14 years was not considered necessary when the Bill was presented to Parliament last November. The Government were then content with a two year sentence.
I happily go along with a 14-year sentence. Indeed the last impression I wish to give is that we wish to go soft on such offenders. But we are entitled to an explanation as to why the Government did not consider such a penalty three months ago.
Lord Belstead: I do not know that I have a particularly good answer to that question because of the lengthy time that the Bill was in another place. However, in my opening remarks I stated that this maximum penalty of 14 years for such an offence would be on all fours with other offences in the Bill. I drew the attention of the Committee to Clauses 53 and 54 of the Bill. Clause 53 relates to assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related activities. Clause 54 relates to concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities. This amendment relates to flouting of restraint orders. I can think of nothing more to drive a coach and horses through the confiscation provisions than making it easy for a terrorist, who is liable to have Part VII of the Bill visited upon his head—in other words confiscation—to move the money away to another jurisdiction.
For flat reason we believe that the maximum penalty ought to be on all fours with, for instance, Clauses 53 and 54.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. It does not answer my curiosity as to why such provision was not considered three or four months ago.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 52, line 15, leave out ("8(4)") and insert ("8A").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 4:
1362
Page 53, line 13, at end insert:

PART IV
OFFENCES CHARGED FOLLOWING TERRORIST FUNDS INVESTIGATIONS
Any offence, other than a summary offence, which an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of superintendent certifies is charged in consequence of a terrorist funds investigation, unless the Attorney General for Northern Ireland certifies that it is not to be treated as a scheduled offence; and in this Part of this Schedule—

(a) "summary offence" means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is punishable only on summary conviction; and

(b) "a terrorist funds investigation" means an investigation for the purposes of which a person has been authorised under section 57 of this Act to exercise the powers conferred by Schedule 5 to this Act.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Mode of trial on indictment of scheduled offences]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 18, at end insert:
("() For the purpose of this section, the court shall be comprised of two or more judges.").
The noble Lord said: The obvious objective of the amendment is to substitute a multi-judge court for the single judge who sits alone without a jury in the Diplock courts which are the courts which try terrorist or scheduled offences in Northern Ireland. I should make it clear that such trials constitute just under 30 per cent. and no more of all the indictable cases in Northern Ireland.
The amendment cannot claim the attributes of novelty. It has been the subject of argument ever since the Diplock courts were established. The fact that we are tabling the amendment is evidence that even after the passage of time the doubts have not been dispelled. The argument will not go away.
The amendment is fully supported by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland; that is the Government's own commission. It is supported by the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland. The view of the Government of the Republic of Ireland is that a multi-judge court would greatly strengthen confidence in the administration of justice among members of the nationalist community in the Province.
I readily accept that the issue is one of perception. I am the first to pay tribute to members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. Their quality and standards are of the highest order. Their commitment and courage are unquestioned. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. However, in a Diplock court the judge sits alone, without a jury. He must act as both judge and jury. He may hear evidence or submissions which at a later stage he must dismiss from his mind. There is no allegation or claim that the judges have failed to discharge that difficult task. Yet it is

1363
unacceptable that they should be put in that position. It is also unacceptable that the situation should lead to a lack of confidence in the administration of justice.
When a similar amendment was before another place the Solicitor-General acknowledged that a court system which lacked a jury trial for this kind of offence was only second best. The words "second best" were used by the Solicitor-General. We add that the system fails to command full confidence in some quarters of the Province because it is second best.
In theory the best solution to the problem would be a return to jury trial. However, on behalf of Members on these Benches I accept that it is too early to return to the jury system because of the risks of intimidation and perverse verdicts. Therefore, we believe that the only other solution is to introduce a multi-judge court. That solution has been widely canvassed since the establishment of the Diplock courts and it has been supported by many people in the Province.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will tell the Committee that the amendment may be good in theory but there will be several practical difficulties in its implementation. I accept that he has a point. The Province has a population of only 1.5 million and therefore it does not have the necessary number of judges to staff a multi judge court. Even if it were possible recruitment from the senior Bar would deplete its membership. I understand that to be the main argument against the amendment and I accept that it has force. There are other administrative arguments but it has been shown that they can be overcome.
I shall be interested to learn from the Minister how many cases are heard annually in the Diplock courts. How many of the defendants then proceed to appeal to the three-judge court of appeal? In Northern Ireland there is an automatic right of appeal on fact or on law from a Diplock court to a three-judge court of appeal. If there are difficulties in manning the multi-judge court with High Court or even county court judges, are there good reasons why a judge should not sit with lay assessors? What are the valid objections to that solution?
I should also be interested to know whether there are any valid objections to mainland judges serving in Northern Ireland. Is there any reason why they should not go to the Province on a tour of duty? The Minister may say that that would be exceptional. That is right but, after all, we are dealing with exceptional circumstances. We are talking about an emergency; that word is in the title of the Bill.
I have summarised the case. The arguments have been well canvassed on previous occasions. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I support the amendment. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. It is difficult to make original comments about the subject because it has been well explored in this Chamber and in another place. The fact that the arguments against the Diplock courts are not original does not mean that they do not have considerable force. It is a clicheé that justice must not
1364
only be done but it must be seen to be done. While we have the single-judge courts there will exist an anxiety in the Republic of Ireland and in other countries about the quality of British justice in Northern Ireland.
We all agree that the two main problems with a Diplock court are, first, that it is a clear departure from the generally acceptable standards of justice. The right of trial by jury has long been held sacrosanct in common law. Secondly, there is a risk that judges will become case hardened and unable to approach the evidence in a fresh manner as is expected of a jury. I too pay tribute to our hard-pressed judges. No one could possibly doubt the integrity with which they conduct their difficult business. However, that does not mean that Parliament should not concern itself with the long-term issues as well as the immediate short-term issues.
I understand the problem of numbers. The Northern Irish judiciary is not large and demands for three or even two judges per case would create considerable logistical problems. If judges from England were introduced it could be argued that they would not have sufficient familiarity with the local scene. I suggest that there would be merit in considering the proposal mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies; that is, using local senior barristers and solicitors alongside judges at least in order to evaluate the evidence. A judge sitting with two other legal minds might provide protection against the dangers of one person alone making the decision. I commend to the Minister the suggestion that senior lawyers sitting solely as triers of the facts will be a useful half-way house between the present system and the eventual return to the normal jury trial. Simply standing pat on a system that is increasingly unacceptable to fair justice and to world opinion is not good enough.
Lord Fitt: In 1973 when the original Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill was going through its Committee stage in another place I moved an amendment to provide that there should be three judges, as was the case in the Republic of Ireland, or that there should be lay assessors. My proposal was to increase in the number of personnel in the courts. I tabled such an amendment because I was bitterly opposed to the IRA and all its machinations.
At that time in 1973 my home, my family and myself were under vicious attack by the IRA because I was regarded as not being a nationalist and as being too pro-British and so on. It is hardly likely that I would have moved an amendment to increase the number of judges if I had thought that that would in any way help the men of violence, help their cause or make it more difficult for the judiciary to deal with such cases.
I moved that amendment in 1973. All these years later, I still believe that if there were to be an increase in the number of judges it would intimidate those in Northern Ireland who constantly claim that British justice is not fair and is weighted against the nationalist or Catholic population.
On occasions, the Republic has been under attack but the system there has three judges. The argument was put forward here on Second Reading by my noble

1365
friend Lord Prys-Davies and in reply to a debate on internment the Minister called forth the experiences of the people in the Republic. He said that internment was still on the statute book in the Republic and could be reinstated at any time. He called forth that argument because of objections that were being made against any possible reintroduction of internment in Northern Ireland.
If the Minister called forth the experience of the Republic in that case, then he should accept the experience in this case. In the Republic, the system uses three judges. The reason for three is to make clear that on serious terrorist charges a defendant is given every protection which he merits under the law. I believe that if there were to be two judges or an increase in lay assessors and personnel, then the perception among the nationalist population in Northern Ireland would be that the Government were bending over backwards to ensure that justice was done in accordance with all the standards we have had for centuries in this country.
I do not wish to help, excuse or make matters easy for the terrorists. I do not criticise for the sake of criticising. I believe that if the amendment is carried it will help the whole administration of justice in Northern Ireland and do away with the many criticisms made by the nationalist population in Northern Ireland.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: I do not believe that the case for the amendment has been made out. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the argument seems to rest on the basis that to accept the amendment would strengthen confidence. He went on to speak about a matter of perception, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I do not believe that there is the lack of confidence which noble Lords speak about. When I was in Northern Ireland some years ago I heard many complaints about different matters but not about the Diplock courts. It was quite remarkable: I had expected that there would be such complaints. I found an acceptance that the Diplock courts as constituted—that is, with a single judge—worked. I am not talking only about the unionist population but about the whole population.
I believe—and perhaps my noble friend will confirm this when he replies to the debate—that what I say is borne out by events. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made reference to the number of appeals. I understand that there are fewer appeals from the Diplock courts than there are from courts with juries. As the noble Lord said, an appeal is automatic. One can appeal against verdict or sentence without seeking permission to do so, but people do not appeal. Why is that? It can only be because there is confidence that justice is being done.
If the amendment is adopted, there must be more judges. As already mentioned, that would be difficult. I do not believe that it would be an advantage. Presumably, the existing judges in Northern Ireland are the best available within the legal profession in the Province. If more were to be recruited, they would not be as good. Presumably, the best are there already.
1366
Since the operation of the law depends so much on the expertise and skill of the judges, we must do nothing to diminish that expertise, knowledge and excellence. I do not know what lay assessors are. If they are laymen, I cannot think that they will do much good as judges without any training. Therefore, unless I have misunderstood the term "lay assessor", which I probably have, I disregard that.
I do not believe that the case for making an alteration in the system which demonstrably works well has been made out. I shall oppose the amendment.
Lord Elton: I support my noble friend. The two noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment went out of their way to say that there is no discontent as regards the delivery of justice. They praised the system in the way that it works. Nevertheless, they argue that there is a perception that three judges may be fairer than two and that that would be seen to be the case both in the community and abroad.
The first comment which they made seems to show that there is no pragmatic need for the change. The second matter is answered by the fact that any defendant who feels that he has not received justice from one judge may appeal to three judges. A much more convincing argument is needed if we are to speak of a substantial change with substantial resource requirements or the introduction of new standards of justice such as would be associated either with lay assessors or, indeed, judges not familiar with the Northern Irish scene because they are drawn from British courts.
Lord Lyell: I should like to ask my noble friend for some information. I believe that he will have the figures available. I listened carefully to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies, Lord Fitt and Lord Holme, and to my two noble friends. Of course, an accused found guilty by a Diplock court has an automatic right of appeal to a three-judge court of appeal as is the case elsewhere in the United Kingdom. My recollection is that the number of appeals from Diplock courts which found in favour of an accused was within 1 per cent. either way of any case brought anywhere else in the United Kingdom under the normal jury trial system. Therefore, unless there has been a very dramatic change since I left the Province 18 months ago, it seems to me that everything said by my noble friends proves that the present system in Northern Ireland is working. It gives an accused person the same rights that would be enjoyed elsewhere in the United Kingdom under the present system of justice. Perhaps my noble friend is able to give me the figures.
Lord Howie of Troon: I should like to refer to one argument raised by a noble Lord opposite who seemed to suggest that the existing body of judges in Northern Ireland was the ultimate body. Unless I misunderstood him, he said that to make an increase would in some way diminish it or, make it less valid or good. That strikes me as an extraordinary argument. I believe that to be a strong argument for the amendment although I am sure that there are other

1367
arguments. If an existing judge retires, he is replaced, presumably from the existing reservoir of lawyers in Northern Ireland. That would not weaken the judiciary there. I am inclined to support the amendment.
Lord Belstead: As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said when moving the amendment, it does not have the merit of novelty. Nonetheless, the noble Lord spoke persuasively and neither he nor the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench suggested that such courts, in helping to compensate for the absence of a jury, would improve the standard of justice.
Perhaps I may briefly address myself to that point before turning to the arguments put forward. Apart from the lack of any criticism by those who have reviewed the Diplock courts on behalf of the Government in recent years, there are powerful safeguards contained in the procedures. The safeguards are, first, the requirement upon the court to provide a written judgment stating the reasons for a conviction; secondly, my noble friend Lord Lyell was absolutely right in pointing out that there is an unfettered right of appeal to the three-judge Court of Appeal against sentence or conviction on any ground. Taken together, those safeguards ensure that the Court of Appeal can effectively scrutinise in detail and assess the reasons for a conviction.
In opening, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, very fairly paid tribute to the judiciary in Northern Ireland. However, he said that these courts were simply not right in principle and therefore change would improve confidence. I believe the noble Lord conceded that the necessity for Diplock courts rested to some extent on practicalities. Three of my noble friends on this side of the House who have served in Northern Ireland spoke on the amendment. They were my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, a former Secretary of State, and my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Lyell. All three said that they were suspicious of the amendment. The reason is that practicalities loom large in this matter. My noble friend Lord Colville, lists a number of objections to the change being sought which were made by the present Lord Chief Justice and other judges. Those objections have real force. There would need to be an enhanced panel of judges and it is by no means certain that sufficient suitable candidates would be available or indeed would allow their names to go forward.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that my noble friend Lord Colville, in his report, said that there is no greater ease in finding candidates for the Bench than six years ago, one of the most serious deterrents being the prospect of an armed guard for a judge and his family into the foreseeable future. There is therefore a very real Northern Ireland dimension in the matter. Given the number of cases heard before the Diplock courts, multi-judge courts would be likely to create major problems as regards allocation and listing of cases.
If the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will forgive me for saying so, comparing the three-judge courts in the Republic of Ireland with single judge courts in Northern Ireland is not comparing like with like. The weight of work on the Diplock courts in Northern
1368
Ireland must be infinitely greater than the weight of work on the three-judge courts in the Republic. I ask the Committee to look carefully at what a number of the distinguished reviewers of the emergency legislation said on the issue. Sir George Baker gave exhaustive consideration to the question in 1984 but came down against any change. My noble friend Lord Colville sets out some of the practical difficulties, as I said.
In paragraph 9.1 of his report, my noble friend makes clear that he has no criticism of the performance of the single judge, no jury, Diplock courts. The Government agree with my noble friend on that point. Nonetheless the noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to the perceptions that there are of the standards of justice. He made the point that these courts would publicly persuade people of their high standards of justice if they were reformed in this way. There is no reason to doubt the standard of justice dispensed by judges sitting alone. There is no evidence to suggest that the present system has led to a lowering of standards. In addition, the rate of acquittals in Diplock courts for those contesting the charges laid against them is broadly similar to non-terrorist cases.
Perhaps I may answer one question raised by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. Of those who plead not guilty the acquittal rate is the same as in ordinary courts and successful appeals from the Diplock courts run at a similar rate, in proportionate terms, to the ordinary appeal courts.
I believe we can all agree on one point; that is, that the necessity for having special courts continues to exist. However, much as we regret that necessity I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment. I do so not wishing to appear complacent, not wishing to appear to be stubbornly saying that the Government will not look at any alternative, but believing that we are obtaining a high standard of justice from these courts and that it would be wrong not to recognise that.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to all those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I am grateful also to the Minister for his fair answer. His words will be studied with great care.
The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook—I respect his great experience in Northern Ireland—said that we had not made out a case for the amendment. I must answer that criticism. It would be wrong for me to bring a case before the Committee if there was no basis for it. In a sense it has been made out for me by the Solicitor General in another place, who said that the system is a second-best system. We assert that all the citizens of the United Kingdom are entitled to the best system of justice.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord leaves that point would not he accept that any system without a jury must be second best, but that it is necessary in these particular and tragic cases?
Lord Prys-Davies: We sought to suggest that there was a solution and the solution would be the

1369
multi-judge court; either a single judge sitting with assessors or judges from the mainland serving a tour of duty in the Province.
The second leg on which we rest our case is the perception that exists in certain parts of Northern Ireland—I do not say that it is true for every quarter—that the system does not command confidence. Reference was made to the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. The noble Viscount devoted a whole chapter of his report to the issue. He thought that it merited consideration and we find his conclusion in paragraph 9.7, which reads:
"I prefer to make no recommendation, since there are political aspects which are well outside my terms of reference".
He acknowledged that there was a problem but his terms of reference did not allow him to come down decisively on one side or the other.
As I said, we are grateful to the Minister for his very fair reply to the points raised. I can only take the amendment away, have a good think about it and decide whether or not to come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Power to search for munitions, radio transmitters and scanning receivers]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 25 and insert:
("(3) If it is necessary for the purpose of effectively carrying out a search—

(a) a member of Her Majesty's forces or constable exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1) above may be accompanied by other persons; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: Clause 19(3) of the Bill creates a new power to enable civilian specialists to accompany searches of premises, including dwelling houses, or other places for munitions or transmitters. The specialists may include forensic scientists, scenes of crime officers and police photographers. Several safeguards already exist in the application of the provision. Thus, anyone accompanying a search of a dwelling house must be individually authorised to do so. The search damage report form, a copy of which is handed to the householder on completion of the search, must contain information about those conducting the search, including their names and professional rank.
When this provision was considered in another place, concern was expressed that the provision was too widely drafted and could enable almost anyone to be authorised to accompany a search. The basic criticism was that, as drafted, the provision did not require an individual's presence to be both justifiable and/or necessary. The Government have reflected on the issue, and we have concluded that it would be right to provide on the face of the Bill that other persons may only accompany a search, or be authorised to accompany a house search, if it is necessary for the purpose of effectively carrying out the search. The amendment would, therefore, require a person's
1370
presence to be both justifiable and necessary. I hope that the Committee feels that this is a good safeguard to put into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We welcome the amendment. It reflects the concern previously expressed by the Opposition about the lack of definition in the original clause. However, the amendment makes it clear that civilian specialists are only to be present at searches if their presence
"is necessary for the purpose of effectively carrying out a search".
That is firmly and clearly stated. It is to be welcomed. I hope that the new provision will work well in practice.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 14, line 22, at end insert:
("(7A) Where a member of Her Majesty's forces or a constable carries out a search under subsection (1) or (2) above he shall, unless it is not practicable to do so, make a written record of the search which shall specify—

(a) the address of the premises, or a description of the place, which is searched;

(b) the date and time of the search;

(c) any damage caused in the course of the search; and

(d) anything seized in the course of the search.

(7B) Such a record shall also include the name (if known) of any person appearing to the person making the record to be the occupier of the premises or other place searched; but—

(a) a person may not be detained to find out his name; and

(b) if the person making the record does not know the name of a person appearing to him to be the occupier of the premises or other place searched, he shall include in the record a note otherwise describing him.

(7C) Such a record shall identify the person by whom the search is carried out—

(a) in the case of a constable, by reference to his police number; and

(b) in the case of a member of Her Majesty's forces, by reference to his service number, rank and regiment.

(7D) Where a record of a search is made under this section a copy of the record shall be supplied to any person appearing to the person making the record to be the occupier of the premises or other place searched.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to place a duty on the police and armed forces to make a written record, subject to practicability, when they carry out searches of premises, including dwelling houses, or other places under the powers in Clause 19. I hope that the Committee will feel that this is an important new safeguard. The record to be made is included in the amendment which is before the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We also welcome this amendment. I shall be grateful if the Minister can help us about two matters. First, why is there no reference to a time limit in subsection 7(D)? When will the record be made? How long will the occupier of the premises which have been searched have to wait before he receives a copy of the written record? I remind the Minister that where a similar record is made under Clause 26(6), it is a written record and it has to be made at once or as soon as practicable. We draw attention to the fact that there is no time limit in

1371
subsection 7(D) of the proposed amendment. Perhaps the Minister can explain why that is so. Has the matter just been overlooked?
The second issue that needs clarification is this: when this amendment is in place, together with Amendment No. 17 to which we shall come, records will have to be kept of premises searched, vehicles which have been removed to be searched, and of documents which have been searched. Why is the principle not also extended so that we have a record of individuals who have been searched? I mention that because repeated searching of the same individuals is a source of much controversy and grievance. That was recently the subject of comment by the Primate of All Ireland. I referred to that matter in my speech at Second Reading. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why the provision has not been extended to include individuals.
Lord Fitt: I strongly reinforce the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. The Minister may recall that in 1970 there was what became known as the Falls Road curfew. Shots were fired at the security forces at the end of June of that year. In consequence a whole district was cordoned off by the security forces and almost every house in the area was searched. Not only were the houses searched but they were wrecked. I remember the occasion very vividly. I was the Member of Parliament representing that area. The curfew lasted for four days before things returned to normal. I went to hundreds of little homes in the area and saw how badly they had been wrecked and vandalized.
One does not have to take my word for it because since then a number of reports and investigations have been carried out into what happened during those four days. That is why I said to the Minister at Second Reading that it is of the utmost importance that when searches have to be carried out they are done with a great deal of thought for the people who live in the houses. When the army first went into Northern Ireland the IRA did not have very much support in the nationalist areas. It was the practice of the IRA to ring the security forces and tell them in an anonymous phone call that it had seen arms being moved in and out of different houses.
I saw that taking place in the Kashmir Road in Belfast. I am quite certain that in that area, whatever support the IRA may have had at that time, it was minimal. It realised that it had minimum support in that area. The IRA telephoned the Springfield Road police station and the message was consequently relayed to the army. Information was given that arms were to be found in the Kashmir Road. I was there on the Wednesday afternoon when the army came in and cordoned off the road, dragged people about in a very nasty way, wrecked their furniture and their little homes. One has to understand people living in such circumstances. One has to understand the highly emotional atmosphere in which the searches were taking place. The little homes were being wrecked. In fact the IRA has composed songs about it. The incident has gone into Irish folklore. There is a version of an Irish song, which contains the line,
1372
"Cromwell's men are here again."
One can understand the political propaganda that can be made by the subversive forces in Northern Ireland if searches are not carried out in a proper way.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has asked what "practicable" means. Are we asking those who are carrying out the search to make the report immediately after or will it be made the next day or the day after that? How long will be the time lapse? The longer the time lapse between the search of a house and the issuing of the report into the circumstances of that search, the longer the emotional time. People's nerves are on edge. In that situation they are easy prey for the para-military organisations who will perhaps exaggerate out of all proportion the circumstances under which the search took place. I urge the Minister that when it is necessary to make a report about a search it should be made in the shortest possible time. Moreover, when the search is made, it should be carried out in a way that will not leave a question mark over the actions of the security forces.
4 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support the proposal that searches should be well documented. That must be done so as to avoid the PR problems that occur when buildings are searched. However, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, how in practical terms he reckons he can bring in the provision for documentation as regards individuals who are searched. I should like to know the level of search he has in mind. For example, is he talking about a frisk and search that many of us get in Northern Ireland three or four times a day in the city centre, whenever we go into government buildings or into the airport? If he is talking about that level of search, immense practical problems would arise. In fact the task would be totally impossible.
The law-abiding people in Northern Ireland do not mind being searched. They are happy about the amount of searching which takes place because it provides them with security. If we adopt the suggestion, what would happen in the case of someone who happens to have five search documents on his person which he has received during the past week. He is then stopped by members of the security forces who express the desire to search him and he says, "Hey, hold on, boys. I have five of these already"? That is exactly the sort of situation for which the terrorists are waiting. What will that person be carrying on the fifth and sixth time he goes through the process? I cannot support the proposal.
Lord Renton: I do not know whether it is the Government's intention, but the clause does not appear to deal with the search of an individual. If one looks at the amendment, it refers to a search carried out,
"under subsection (1) or (2)".
Moreover, if one looks at subsection (1), it will be seen that it is a question of "the place" being searched. Therefore, although there are legal provisions which deal with the search of individuals, this particular clause does not seem to have that intention.

1373
As to the timing, if there is a genuine fear about that aspect, it is a matter which can easily be put right by analogy with the statements which have to be taken from people in custody. Such statements have to be taken at the time of the interview or as soon as practicable thereafter. I should have thought that a simple phrase such as the latter could be added to this subsection in order to allay those fears.
Lord Belstead: My noble friend is quite right; we are not talking about the searching of persons at present. However, there has been an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who raised the issue, and my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. In fact, I do not believe that I can better what my noble friend said on that point.
So far as concerns a written record being made, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has every reason to ask when this would be handed over. The answer is as soon as possible. However, I should like to consider what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, have said and perhaps write to both of them.
Finally, I must stress that I take seriously the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, based on his personal experience, about the damage which can be done to property and to relations in the course of a search. It is no answer for me to say that Clause 62 provides for compensation in such circumstances, although that is the case. I believe that we should acknowledge the fact that a balance must somehow be found, bearing in mind that people become more and more ingenious at finding places in houses where things can be stored.
Only this morning a former part-time RUC officer was murdered in Armagh City by a booby trap device under his car. As I listened to the exchange on this amendment it led me to think that, if we were talking about a house where such a murderous device was being constructed, we would believe that the security forces have the right, morally and legally, to try to find that dreadful thing. Yet we are, nevertheless, driven back to what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said. We must be careful. We must try to deal sensibly with both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. It is for that very reason that we have tabled amendments today to bring additional safeguards into the Bill.
Lord Prys-Davies: We deeply regret the fact that another police officer has been murdered today in the course of his duty. Of course, nothing we have said challenges the right to conduct a search. The amendment is concerned with a record of the search.
In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, to whom I always listen with great respect because he lives in the Province in the dangerous border counties, I accept that there would be difficulties in seeking to apply this clause to vehicles which are stopped at checkpoints. However, I am concerned about the individuals who are stopped and taken away to be searched. It seems to me that it would be possible to keep a record merely of the place where the search was undertaken, its date and time,
1374
the type of search and those involved in conducting it. I believe that those are the particulars which the noble Viscount was seeking to obtain from me.
As regards the Minister's reply, I very much welcome what he said. As I understand the position, he and his advisers will possibly look again at subsection (7)(b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Examination of documents]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 15, line 34, leave out from ("search") to the end of line 36 and insert ("which he reasonably suspects may contain any such information as is mentioned in section 31(1) (a) or (b) below so far as is reasonably required to ascertain whether it contains any such information.").
The noble Lord said: As it stands, Clause 22 gives the police and the security forces the power to examine any documents which are found in the course of a search of premises. They have the power to examine them in order to ascertain whether they contain any of the information referred to in Clause 31(1) (a) and (b). The power in that clause applies to,
"(a) a constable or member of Her Majesty's forces; (b) any person holding judicial office; (c) any officer of any court; (d) any person employed for the whole of his time in the prison service in Northern Ireland",
and any other person who might fall within any of those categories. We accept that there may be circumstances in which it is reasonable and necessary that the security forces should be able to examine such documents. However, what is worrying about the clause as it stands is that it contains no safeguard against abuse. The power of searching or examining a document can be exercised at random. That could be a breach of privacy. Moreover, if the power is exercised at random—speculatively, so to speak—it could damage the relationship between the security forces and those in the communities in which they operate. The object of the amendment is to seek to limit the exercise of that power so that it becomes exercisable only if and when the soldier or constable has grounds for suspecting that a document contains within it Clause 31 material.
I readily accept that the wording of the amendment may be imperfect. Indeed, it is extremely difficult to achieve the correct wording. However, the object is clear: we should introduce the test of a reasonable suspicion that a document contains Clause 31 information. We suggest that the key to the application of this power should be a reasonable basis of suspicion.
I should also like to take this opportunity to focus attention on subsection (3). This is in response to an effort made in another place to protect the privacy and confidentiality of documents which enjoy legal privilege. That is the significance of subsection (3). However, we note that that protection is not extended to the papers of a doctor, or of a priest in relation to a member of his congregation. There we have the relationship of trust. We have a relationship of trust between a client and a solicitor, between a doctor and his patient and between a priest and a member of his

1375
congregation. Neither are the papers of a journalist protected. I wonder whether the Minister can explain why the clause should not extend to those categories.
We have another worry about subsection (3). We fear that it will be very difficult to operate. The difficulty is that the nature of a document can only be established in the course of it being examined. How will a soldier, who is inevitably a layman in these matters, be able to judge whether a document attracts legal privilege? Will not this be entirely outside his experience? Is it realistic in the real world to believe that the soldier can draw a line between what is privileged and what is not privileged?
Perhaps I can put two specific questions to the Minister so that we can see how this subsection will operate. First, will a soldier be authorised to accept a statement or a claim by a barrister or a solicitor that the papers enjoy legal privilege? Does he accept that statement from the solicitor or the barrister? I assume of course that the soldier is satisfied that the person concerned is a barrister or a solicitor. Similarly, will the soldier, in the same kind of circumstances, accept the statement if it is made by the barrister's clerk or by the solicitor's clerk?
On 8th November, when the Bill was introduced, the Northern Ireland Office issued a press notice on government security policy. It claimed in paragraph (d) on page 3 of that notice that it would strike a balance between the needs of the security forces and the need to provide appropriate safeguards for the individual.
I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate to me where in the clause there is a safeguard for an innocent individual who protests that his papers ought not to be examined; who protests, for example, that his diary ought not to be examined. Is there a single safeguard in this clause which would protect the innocent individual? It must be our main function as an Opposition to ensure that, where new powers are given, there is at least an adequate safeguard for the innocent who may be caught up in the net of that power. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has spoken to a very important clause in the Bill. What the noble Lord has said has been serious and he has expressed his anxieties. One of the terrorist's most vital weapons is intelligence and the collection of information. Without such information terrorists very often could not target their attacks against particular individuals or places. At present the security forces are at a very extraordinary disadvantage. While it is an offence to possess information which is likely to be useful to terrorists—indeed, all of us in public life know what I mean when I say information of a targeting kind, such as people's addresses and car registration numbers—there is no related power to examine material found during the course of a search to ascertain whether it contains such information. Therefore, the purpose of the new power in Clause 22 is to enable the police and armed forces to examine documents found in the course of a search so far as is
1376
reasonably required for ascertaining whether those documents contain any information likely to be useful to terrorists.
The Committee will wish to be reminded that the police already have powers under the police and criminal evidence legislation to seize documents which they have reasonable grounds for believing are evidence of an offence. However, for reasons I have begun to explain, we believe that we should go slightly further in the emergency powers. The fact remains that, as the law currently stands, it works very much in the terrorist's favour. We think it would be wrong to pass over any reasonable means of enhancing the security forces' ability to obtain evidential material as well as to deter and disrupt terrorist operations.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that there were no safeguards in the clause. Clause 22 only allows documents to be examined so far as is reasonably required for ascertaining whether they contain information likely to be useful to terrorists. There can be no photocopying, and a complete record must be made of the examination and an identification of the person who has carried it out. In addition to that, documents with legal privilege are exempted. The noble Lord put a direct question to me. He asked whether a soldier will accept a statement from a lawyer that the document which he has found is a legal document. I can only answer that the clause quite clearly says that the security forces must have reasonable cause for believing it to be a legal document. There has to be a balance between trying to make sure and respecting legal privilege.
One thing I should like to say is that it is most certainly the intention of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland to issue detailed force instructions to the police and armed forces about the exercise of these powers. It is important that I say that this afternoon.
We are dealing with an important issue. I ask the Committee to imagine for a moment a situation where four men are stopped at a checkpoint in Northern Ireland. The police become suspicious but there are no grounds to detain the men. However, during the search some papers are discovered in the vehicle. Under this clause those papers can be examined so far as is reasonably required to see if they contain information which is mentioned in Clause 31; namely, targeting information about the police, soldiers, the judiciary or the prison service or for planning a terrorist attack of any kind. On this occasion it so happens that the papers which are found in the vehicle do contain just that kind of information. That is the way that lives are saved in a terrorist situation. However, with the very best of intentions the amendment which the noble Lord has put down could prevent that from happening. With the best of intentions the noble Lord asks why there are not wider exceptions in the clause. The answer is that if there were wider exceptions the clause would be unworkable. Provided that the clause is administered properly and sensitively—I have given an undertaking to the

1377
Committee, and the GOC and the Chief Constable will be giving advice to the men and women under their command—it could save lives in the future.
Lord Renton: If we were to examine the laws of any country, democracy or dictatorship, a well-developed country or a backward country, we should find that the police were given, by authority of Parliament, if there is one, power to do whatever is necessary to prevent or detect crime, especially terrorism. The fact that we go into this enormous amount of detail to ensure that not one police officer or soldier oversteps by half in inch what Parliament considers to be right shows what a wonderful democracy we are.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: The amendment relates to a document that is reasonably suspected of containing information. If I were a terrorist, I should put my information in a book that no one would reasonably suspect, and so all books would immediately become books one reasonably suspected. I feel that it is the amendment that is unworkable.
Viscount Brookeborough: The words with which I take issue are "reasonable suspicion". If there were reasonable suspicion—depending upon how reasonable it was—some people would not now be wandering the streets. The problem may arise when a soldier who stops someone and wishes to search for papers his to justify the fact that his suspicions were reasonable. I do not accept that those words should be used. Apart from anything else, terrorists are well known to use people who were previously above suspicion, or not known to the security forces, to carry messages, documents and information.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the greatest problem might arise in relation to soldiers. Policemen are aware of the law to a much greater extent. The abuse that might take place may be caused more often by the soldiers. When talking about abuse, it is important to note that I am sure that no British soldier goes out on the streets with the intent to abuse any Acts which may be in force. The abuse would be unintentional. But without a code of practice or some other supporting legislation, soldiers might far too easily unintentionally abuse the power merely because they were trying to do their job. The code of practice could be similar to the yellow card which exists in Northern Ireland. The yellow card is used by soldiers before opening fire. They have to say, "Halt or I fire".
If a soldier sees documents in a car perhaps he should have to say to the owner of the documents or the car driver, "Are there any documents in this pile which are of a legal nature?" Should the person say that there are no such documents, the soldier should be allowed to search them if he feels that he should. However should the person say that there are legal documents, the soldier could ask for them to be removed from the pile and search the remainder. If he wished to look at the documents to prove whether they were legal, he could call a policeman to do so. The benefit of such a procedure would be that it would put the onus on the driver to avoid the problem before it arises rather than to leave it to arise. The soldier would
1378
then have to go to court to justify what he had done. It would help put the matter right if such a code of practice were put forward.
Lord Havers: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, spoke about priests and journalists. It must be made clear that neither of those two categories of people have privilege. It would be wrong to believe that any document made by a journalist or a priest was protected.
Lord Fitt: The clause extends what was said in earlier debates. It is an attempt to give innocent people the greatest protection while ensuring that we apprehend law breakers and terrorists. I have practical experience of such matters from the years I lived in Belfast.
Premises are also mentioned in the clause. When a house is searched in Belfast, or anywhere else in Northern Ireland for that matter, we understand that the search will be carried out by the army, with a member of the RUC present. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies rightly said that the young soldier who takes part in the search would have no idea of what was a privileged document or a terrorist document because he would not be trained in such aspects. A policeman may be different. He is from Northern Ireland and will be much more aware of what is happening in the community.
The young soldier may lift up a document and say, "I think that this is connected with the advance of terrorism". Will the RUC member be able to tell that young soldier—after all we are told that the army is in Northern Ireland in support of the police—"Look, I know that that document has nothing to do with terrorism and we are not taking the matter any further"? Such a situation is possible.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that soldiers can be biased. Belfast is not far removed in geography or history from Glasgow and Liverpool. I remember in the early 1970s when there was a Scottish regiment in the New Lodge Road area of Belfast. A riot took place in that area. It was well documented on television, and the pictures are still available. Some soldiers in that Scottish regiment dealt with the alleged rioters far more enthusiastically than was justified. Other members of the same regiment became involved with their colleagues in an attempt to prevent them from using excessive force on the young people involved in the riot. That example indicates in a practical way that all members of the British army, given their history, where they were born, and perhaps their religion, are not unbiased.
When a young soldier joins the British army he does not fill in a questionnaire which asks whether he is unbiased in respect of all Northern Ireland affairs. There are no criteria which would enable that young soldier to fill in such a questionnaire. The question arises as to who will take part in the search. Will it be two or three young private soldiers and a policeman, or two or three young private soldiers and a corporal or a lance corporal? From whom will the young private soldier take his orders in such circumstances? Does he take them from the corporal, the lance corporal or the RUC man? Even the corporal and the

1379
lance corporal may have no experience of the type of documents about which we are speaking. Will the RUC man involved in the search take the prime position in those circumstances?
Lord Belstead: Before the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, decides what he wishes to do with the amendment, perhaps I may thank my noble friend Lord Brookeborough for suggesting a code of practice. We envisage force instructions coming from the GOC in Northern Ireland and the RUC Chief Constable. That is probably the road down which we shall go. We shall do very much what my noble friend recommended—the men and women on the ground will have instructions as to how to put this difficult but potentially valuable clause into effect. I do not wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in the arguments that he expressed except to say that it is the Government's policy that the army should support the police whenever possible in Northern Ireland.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to those who have taken part in discussion of the amendment. I did not, of course, intend to suggest that subsection (3) should be extended ad infinitum. I had in mind the four categories which I named. However, I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, that in law the papers of a priest and of a journalist are not protected. I still say that the clause offers no protection against abuse. The Minister referred to subsection (5) which requires a soldier or a constable to make a written record of an examination and to hand it over to the person whose papers are being examined. However, that offers no protection against the power being abused. The notion that subsection (5), valuable though it is, protects privacy is simply not on.
I accept that the amendment may be difficult to operate. Indeed on Second Reading I ventured to suggest that the clause might not be amendable. I likened it to the poll tax; that is, to something that one cannot amend. There has been criticism of the wording of the amendment. We may well have to reconsider whether we can produce an improved version. The Minister said in his closing remarks that a soldier will also require guidance on how the clause will apply.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, made a helpful suggestion. He developed the point made by the Minister that the army and the RUC intend to issue guidance to soldiers and policemen respectively. However, the noble Viscount went further and suggested that a code of practice might be appropriate. I hope that the Minister and those who advise him can give that suggestion from their own Back-Benches further consideration. We would be pleased to support the recommendation because the clause is difficult. It is difficult too to design an amendment which is workable or which indicates the need for guidance. I believe that such a measure contained in a code of practice would very much
1380
enhance the guidance that the Minister has in mind. I do not propose to take the matter further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 15, line 40, at end insert:
("Provided that where any document is so removed the owner or person in control of it shall be given a written receipt for it.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the object of the amendment is clear. It seems to us that the record of examination provided for by subsection (5) of the clause does not cover the point that a receipt should be given at the time that documents are removed. Under the terms of subsection (5) the written record of an examination may be made at a later stage. However, subsection (5) is activated when papers are removed. We should have thought that members of the security forces should issue a receipt for the papers at that stage. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, I wish to say that in my view the careful and detailed consideration we are giving to it today is absolutely necessary. Such consideration is necessary not only for this Bill but for a good deal of the other legislation concerning Northern Ireland. We are grateful for this opportunity to give full consideration to the Bill and hope for similar opportunities on other matters in the future.
The Bill states that any document or record may be removed. That provision could cover the only copy of a thesis or the manuscript of a book. It could cover a person's love letters or a whole variety of commercial documents which may be the sole copies in existence and therefore unique. That is why I suggest strongly that it is important that a written receipt should be given at the time of removing the documents.
I appreciate that a person who is compiling information for the purposes of terrorism is quite likely to hide his lists in other documents so that a person searching for that information may have to spend some time sieving through documents to find it. I hope the Government will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Blease: I hope the Minister will indicate whether it is present practice for a receipt to be given for any items or documents that are removed, even when a search is conducted in the street. Is it not a fact that information has been tabulated which makes it reasonably easy to ascertain dates and the types of documents and material that have been removed? I support the points that my noble friend has made. I believe that the code of practice that is being drawn up will require a more sophisticated receipt to be given.
Lord Elton: In anticipating that the answer to the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, will be "yes", I merely wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to clear up one doubt I have. Amendment No. 9 states:
"Provided that where any document is so removed".
Should the amendment not state:
"Provided that when any document is so removed"?
I thought his argument concerned the latter provision.
Viscount Brookeborough: I feel that the amendment is unnecessary. I have spoken to several people in Northern Ireland including policemen and solicitors. They point out that anything that is taken from anyone in the street constitutes an "act of theft" unless a receipt is made out. Therefore, as far as I am aware, a receipt is made out for any item that is removed, whether it is a document or any other item.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have a slight difficulty with the amendment. Clearly the spirit of it is absolutely spot on. A receipt should be given where it is possible to serve one. However, as we discussed earlier, there are occasions when the armed forces or the police enter unoccupied buildings. How does one serve a receipt in those circumstances? Is it not asking for trouble to do so? Where the security forces enter an unoccupied building and serve a receipt, the first thing that will happen is that the counter terrorists among the terrorists—irrespective of whether they are republican or loyalist—will become involved. They will gain as much—I suggest, more—information from the receipt than from the building being searched. I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord will reconsider the drafting of the amendment. Subject to anything my noble friend on the Front Bench may say, I have a feeling there is a germ of sense in all this.
Lord Belstead: I ask the Committee to consider carefully Clause 22(6) which sets out the details which the written record must contain in this case. Incidentally, the written record will constitute a detailed receipt where documents are removed and retained for examination. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights considered that to be an important point when it was raised in the period of consultation that took place after the Bill had commenced its passage in another place.
Perhaps I may continue with that point. As your Lordships will see from subsection (6), the written record must specify a description of the document or record. Therefore, as I read that, there must be a description of each document or record. In any case where a document is removed for examination the record must state the date and time when it was taken, and the inclusion of those details in the record is mandatory. As the clause also requires the police and armed forces to provide a copy of the record to any individual whose documents are examined or removed for examination, the record itself will constitute a very detailed receipt, as I said at the outset.
I do not want to be pigheaded about the matter and to disagree on something on which I believe we ought to find some accommodation. However, as there is a requirement to provide the record as soon as is practicable and to provide a copy to the owner I believe that we are talking about a situation in which there will be not only a receipt but a very detailed receipt.
So as to bring this exchange to an end I should like to consider what all of your Lordships have said on the amendment and see whether any rethink is necessary. I ask your Lordships at the same time to consider what I have said on behalf of the Government. Subsection (6) is important here. I think
1382
that it constitutes the receipt which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is after. On that basis, subject to anything that the noble Lord may wish to say, perhaps we may end this particular exchange.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, replies he may wish to have his attention invited to subsection (9) which states that the document or record may not be retained for more than 48 hours.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response to the amendment. As I see it, the process under Clause 22 will be a two-stage process: stage one, the documents are removed from the premises; stage two, the documents are examined. When one arrives at stage two the record will he prepared and it will be served under subsection (8). However, that leaves stage one untouched. In our view when the documents are removed there ought to be a receipt for the documents. It will not be as full as the record under subsection (5). There are two stages and as I read it the record deals only with the examination of the documents. Certainly at that stage the record is a very full document, but there should also be a receipt at stage one.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked upon whom one will serve the receipt. It will be served upon the same person as one would serve the written record in accordance with subsection (8).
I shall not detain the Committee any longer on this point. The Minister has said that he will consider what has been said. I hope that he will see his way to insert a receipt in this clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I have one point which I think should be raised in relation to subsection (4) of Clause 22. It reads:
"Where a document or record is examined under this section it shall not be photographed or copied".
It may well be that that very document discloses an offence which has already been committed. It surprises me that the police are not entitled, even using powers under this clause which deals with the examination of documents, to have the document copied if it may constitute an offence in itself or be very strong evidence of an offence. Perhaps my noble friend will consider that point.
Lord Belstead: I shall certainly consider what my noble friend Lord Renton has said. My noble friend is a distinguished lawyer and I am not a lawyer. It occurs to me that with the prohibition on photocopying in this particular clause, when the documents were returned they would be returned with interest. Presumably the police would accompany the documents and consult the malefactor. Perhaps I may look at what my noble friend has said.
On Question, Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Power to stop and question]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 17, line 5, leave out ("and question any person") and insert ("any person for so long as is necessary in order to question him").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is intended as a minor clarification of the existing powers to stop and question. In another place concern was expressed that in some instances that power was effectively used as a power to detain persons for longer than was necessary to question them about the matters in subsection (1). The amendment is designed to ensure that the clause is not regarded as a power to detain for longer than is necessary to establish those matters. It is intended as a modest safeguard and I hope that the Committee will feel that it is right to support it. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We believe that this is a wise amendment and we hope that it will work well in practice.
Lord Blease: Perhaps I may briefly, without embellishment, draw attention to the fact that in relation to the previous clause the Minister laid great stress on the word "reasonable". The series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, with which we shall deal next, also deal with the question of reasonableness. Will the Minister kindly consider again the insertion of the word "reasonably" so that the amendment reads:
"any person for so long as is reasonably necessary in order to question him"?
I could cite numerous instances of people being detained for a street search for much longer than was necessary, although I was not present. I believe that the addition of the word "reasonably" here would add to the legislation.
Lord Belstead: I hesitate to cross swords with the noble Lord, who can forget more about Northern Ireland than I shall ever learn. However, it occurs to me that there are people who are stopped and questioned who are quite ready to make use of the legal system if they possibly can because they hold no particular friendship for the security forces. If we inserted the word "reasonably" it would be as long as a piece of string. It would give opportunities for such people to bring to the attention of the courts the question of whether stopping and questioning had been reasonable on a particular occasion.
In Amendment No. 10 we intend to bring forward what I hope is a safeguard. Of course I shall look again at what the noble Lord has said but on this occasion I shall not offer to write to the noble Lord. I hope that he will not think that I am discourteous in saying that. If the noble Lord wants to press the matter perhaps we can discuss it outside the Chamber. That is my reaction off the cuff to what the noble Lord has suggested.
Lord Blease: I thank the Minister for that reply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [General powers of entry and interference with the rights of property and with highways]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 17, line 20, after ("he") insert ("reasonably").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11 perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. Once again the object of these four amendments is to ensure that the powers are always exercised subject to the criterion of reasonableness. I do not propose to detain the Committee long on these amendments, but I believe that it is particularly important that a test of reasonableness should apply to Clause 24(1), which goes to the heart of family life.
There can be no greater intervention by the state in the life of the family than to give a soldier or a constable the right to march into one's home. On the mainland we do well to remind ourselves that those powers are exercisable without a justice's warrant. In view of the emphasis to which I referred contained in the Northern Ireland Office press notice of 8th November on the need to provide appropriate safeguards for individuals and the emphasis contained in the Minister's speech on Second Reading, we believe that it is unsatisfactory that the powers in the clause are not specifically subject to the criterion of reasonableness. I do not think that I can add to what I have said. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: With respect to the noble Lord, I should not have thought that his amendment was necessary. My noble friend may disagree with me, but in the circumstances of the paramount need for the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order, if a constable decides that it is necessary to enter he will probably make a decision at once. He cannot scratch his head too much. I should have thought that to insert the word "reasonably" adds nothing to "necessary" and might impair the effectiveness of the clause.
Lord Hylton: I hesitate to clash swords with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but as I read the clause it would enable the security forces to take possession of a house and possibly to exclude the owner from it completely. It even goes on to say that he may cause any property to be destroyed or moved. There might be a case for improving the field of fire in a particular place, but it is pretty tough on the person whose property is destroyed or moved. There is a strong case for the amendment.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, spoke as though these were new powers. I do not seek to justify them on this ground alone, but it is worth making the point that the powers have been on the statute book since 1978, when the Government of noble Lords opposite were in office, and have been carried over from years before then. I say that simply as a matter of fact. I also admit that it is clearly essential that proper thought should be given to the effects of police and army operations on local residents who fall within the scope of Clause 24.
However, there are two safeguards on the powers. First, compensation is payable under Clause 62 where private property is interfered with or real or personal property is taken, occupied, destroyed or damaged. Secondly, any order made by my right honourable

1385
friend the Secretary of State under Clause 24(2) conferring authority on the security forces to carry out certain specified acts is susceptible to judicial reviews. Therefore, if the authorisation which the Secretary of State gives is arbitrary or wholly unreasonable, there remains a means of redress for the ordinary citizen. I realise that that would be post hoc—but this brings me to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton; namely, if you are a constable, can you agonise in your mind whether you should reasonably take a decision under Clause 24? With his great experience, my noble friend was quite right to say that it would be less than reasonable to insert that word when in some cases a split-second decision must be taken.
The Committee will forgive me if I add one other point. If we were to insert a criterion of reasonableness into the clause, there is a danger that a variety of civil cases might virtually be invited, challenging the reasonableness of actions in a whole variety of routine anti-terrorist operations. I am sorry, but it has to be said that it is a feature of the situation in Northern Ireland that those sympathetic to terrorist organisations seek to exploit the legal system to undermine the legitimate operations of the security forces. We must bear in mind that, by their nature, these are emergency powers which are frequently exercised in areas where there may be a significant degree of hostility to the security forces in carrying out their operations. That is a rather jarring note to introduce, but I feel that I must mention it because I know from the short time that I have worked in Northern Ireland what I have just said is true.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may add a postscript. Discussions in court on the word "reasonableness" are unending, and that is just what they would be in these circumstances.
Lord Prys-Davies: The insertion of the word "reasonably" into the clause would ensure that those who exorcise the powers might think twice. Instant decision s have left their scars on Northern Ireland and I should not have thought that that was an argument for resisting the amendment. I have approached the powers in Clause 24 from the standpoint of an innocent citizen who believes that the soldier or constable is acting unreasonably. If we failed to raise that issue in the Chamber, we should fail in our duty to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division, but we may consider whether we should return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Power of Secretary of State to direct the closure, etc. of roads]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 18, line 12, after ("may") insert ("if he considers it reasonably necessary for the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order").
The noble Lord said: We fully accept that there are circumstances in which it is right that some public roads have to be closed on security grounds and at short notice. The closure will block both access and
1386
escape routes for terrorist units. We also accept that the border is a dangerous land for the armed forces and the police. Some people say that there should be even more stringent measures to seal the border, but we must also bear in mind that a highway exists to serve a living community and will often have served a community for generations. Its closure may therefore cause severe disruption to people living and working in the vicinity. It may have severe social and economic consequences, so in deciding whether to close the border crossing one must weigh the social and economic considerations against the security considerations.
I should have thought that, when the security considerations are convincing, no reasonable person would object to the closure, but when they are not convincing or apparently not convincing the closure may be counter-productive. It would be counterproductive because it would involve in particular the risk of confrontation between local people and security forces and between farmers and soldiers and may lead to the construction of bypass works. Clause 25(2) makes it an offence to execute bypass works, but I doubt whether that solves the problem.
What is missing from the clause is a right to ask the court to review a road closure decision to ensure that the decision is reasonable in the circumstances. The amendment seeks to make the decision subject to judicial review. That power would go a long way to reduce tension and resentment at a road closure decision. If it is available to people who are affected by the decision, they will be able to do something about it. They will be able to apply for leave for judicial review. If people have no legal remedy available to them it is not entirely surprising that they should build bypass works. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I should like to reflect on the concerns of the noble Lord in moving Amendment No. 15. I understand what the noble Lord is driving at, though I must admit I am not a lawyer and he is. I want to try to meet the noble Lord. The only point in my mind at the moment is whether one can have a draft which talks about something being "reasonably necessary". For instance, it can be said that it is necessary for a bicycle to have two wheels but is it reasonably necessary? A person who has fallen off a bicycle may well say it is reasonably necessary—and a lot of other things besides—but in law is it possible to say something is reasonably necessary? I should like to think about that and take advice. Having had a think about it, it may be possible to have a word with the noble Lord, but at the moment I am not in a position to say I accept what the noble Lord is driving at, partly because I am worried about the drafting but also because I should like to consider it a little further, having just heard the noble Lord across the Dispatch Box. I give the commitment that I will come back and have a word with the noble Lord about the matter if that is what he wishes. If, on that basis, the noble Lord would like to leave it that would be my wish.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps the noble Lord would like to consider whether the word "reasonably" might come two words earlier in the amendment.
Lord Blease: I am sure that my noble friend will reply in the affirmative to what the noble Minister has said. I should like to add a few comments to what has been said. This is a highly politically-charged area. We are considering here a situation of no-go and border areas where over night people put up road blocks to protect themselves from those marauding around intent on evil. This matter is very complex in its application, highly political and may be hard to remedy. In my view, there needs to be some form of co-operation with the Republic in the administration of these border areas. Whether that is done by local government or central government in the Republic is another question.
However, I fully support my noble friend who has drawn attention to a particular problem in respect of roads.
Lord Fitt: I too believe the Minister has been very reasonable in his response. I certainly support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Blease. This issue is a highly political and emotional one. The closure of a border road evokes centuries of Irish history. The people living in that area believe that that road traverses the land of Ireland, and it will be in the interest of the IRA to say that a foreign power has closed that part of Ireland to the people who live there.
I have said in an earlier debate that sometimes house searches can be in the interests of terrorists because such searches will enlist support for them. The same thing can happen on a border road. The criterion for the closure of a border road is that either a shooting incident has taken place or bombs have been found adjacent to it. But it may be in the interests of the subversive organisation's propaganda to have that border road closed. It knows very well that farmers living on either side of the road in Northern Ireland and in the Republic regard it as essential to the everyday work taking place on their farms. I am sure that when the Minister looks again at the legalities of this matter he can take into consideration that it may be in the interests of terrorists to have a certain border road closed knowing very well that it is going to create a highly emotive issue. Every aspect of the closure of such roads should be taken into consideration when the Minister returns to reply.
Viscount Brookeborough: I endorse everything that has been said in relation to this amendment. I simply add that the sooner we get the border sorted out as far as regards its administration in a military, police and security sense, the better. At the moment it is perhaps the biggest PR problem we have, at least that is so near the border where I live. The answer lies not simply with the UK Government getting on with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and perhaps having border posts and joint operations; it also lies with the Government in getting down to studying the problem, sorting it out and—I am sorry to say—
1388
putting more money into improving border crossing points so the delays we have already heard about do not occur.
Lord Belstead: In order to ensure that I have not given the wrong impression in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I should make the point that, although I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said, there are circumstances when security considerations generally are so compelling that a road needs to be closed. Therefore, surely it is right in logic as well as in security terms to consider border closures. In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I want to make sure that the wording on the face of the Bill is as fair as possible.
While on my feet, perhaps I may just recall a matter about which my noble friend Lord Brookeborough would be more eloquent than I. We are talking about people's lives. Following the attack on the Derryard vehicle check point, the terrorists left five or six soldiers dead. They went away across a border road which, only a few weeks ago, when the Derryard permanent vehicle check point was closed, was among those which were closed. On the other hand, as many Members who know Northern Ireland will remind me, Northern Ireland lives have been lost. People living near the border have been murdered and the murderers have used border crossing points in order to escape. This is a major headache not only to us but to the Government of the Republic. Therefore, I feel I must say that, in referring to these things, we are talking of people's lives, not just the hard word "security".
Lord Prys-Davies: I agree with the Minister that very often we are talking about people's lives. I referred to the fact that closure blocked access and escape routes for terrorist units. My noble friend Lord Fitt made the valuable point that many of the campaigns to reopen border roads were inspired by paramilitary organisations because they were presented with a grievance to exploit. If this amendment were carried it would not prevent the Secretary of State from immediately closing the highway if he was satisfied that it was necessary in the interests of security. But it would give people the satisfaction of knowing that the decision was subject to judicial review.
The Minister has treated the amendment with sympathy. I acknowledge that the wording may once again be imperfect. I am content to leave the matter with him in the hope that we can produce a satisfactory formula between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 18, line 35, leave out ("(the proof of which lies on him)").
The noble Lord said: Clause 25 creates five new offences in the context of road closures. Each offence is punishable by a fine or up to six months' imprisonment. The amendment draws attention to one of those offences—the last mentioned in the clause. It is referred to in subsection (3):

1389
"A person is guilty of an offence if within 200 yards of any road closure works …without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him) he has in his possession or under his control any materials or equipment suitable for executing bypass works".
The offence covers any material or equipment which is suitable for executing bypass works. It therefore covers almost every variety of farming machinery and equipment, ranging from a tractor to a spade, which is in a farmer's possession for entirely innocent reasons. Our difficulty is compounded by the fact that the clause places the duty on the person who is in possession of the article to prove lawful possession of it. The amendment ensures that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and not on the defence. I hope that this small but important amendment is acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I am afraid that on this occasion there is a gulf between the Government and the Opposition. It follows from what I sought to say to the Committee on the previous amendment. We are talking about issues of life and death. The purpose of the new offences provided by this clause is primarily deterrence. It is not our wish to see a large number of prosecutions arising from the new provisions, but it is our wish that those who make determined efforts, often using substantial resources and heavy equipment, to reopen legitimately closed crossings should cease their efforts. It is also right that where there are grounds to believe that a person may be seeking to attempt to interfere with a closure or create a bypass around it, that person should be obliged to explain his or her actions and account for any equipment or materials in his or her possession in the vicinity of the closure.
I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment. The onus is placed on the person charged with the offence s o as to ensure that he or she gives a proper explanation of why the equipment is possessed and the reason for its presence in the area at that particular time. I believe that that is the only reasonable way to have a prospect of prosecutions that have a chance of succeeding. Once people know that there is that prospect, they will not do such things. To go back to my earlier words, we shall find that there will not be a lot of prosecutions because the offences will have had a deterrent effect. I have to say that I believe that the deterrent effect would be removed were the amendment to be agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: Perhaps my noble friend can help me. I am not too familiar with the exact waterflow and drainage problems in Armagh. I believe that I shall be supported by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough when I say that, so far as concerns County Fermanagh and large parts of County Tyrone, along the border one would find very few farms indeed—probably they could be counted on the fingers of both hands—where there would not be farm machinery, diggers, drainers and machinery of the type described by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. That would be true of any farm in the area.
1390
Virtually every farmer and person has reasonable excuse to use such machines and carry out the operations set out in the clause. I do not see any problem in differentiating between legitimate use of such machinery and what I would call strange machinery which rings alarm bells in the mind of anybody familiar with that part of border, let alone the security forces. I do not see any major difficulty in the clause or its operation, particularly in that sector of the border, because the Committee will be aware that inhabitants of County Fermanagh are said to have webbed feet, although I deny it.
Lord Hylton: I put to the Government that subsection (3) of the clause would probably be satisfactory if it were to read something like:
"execute or permit the execution of works".
It is bypass works with which we are concerned rather than the possession of any materials or any equipment, which could include bricks, blocks, hardcore, ditch culverts and a wide variety of items which are normally found on farms.
Lord Elton: I should like to join discussion on what are bound to be mostly hypothetical questions by drawing the Committee's attention to the 200-yard radius to which this measure applies. It is clear that we are not talking about vast areas of the Province being sterilised. We are talking about a very short distance from a crossing point. Certainly many farmers have to hand dumpers, bulldozer blades and so on. They also have tipping trailers, full perhaps of hardcore or logs, which could be used very swiftly to create a temporary crossing point. It seems a not unreasonable request that where a part of their land lies within 200 yards of a crossing point, they should explain why it is necessary to have those materials and all that equipment so close to it. It is not unreasonable that they should know that that is required and that the proof should be upon them at the time of use. I understand that one is not supposed to go shooting game without a game licence. I do not think that one ought to go with this sort of equipment without that sort of proof.
Baroness Phillips: I put in a plea on the importance of who gets the blame. If we are not careful the terrorists will benefit. The point has been emphasised by many Members of the Committee. The situation may not be totally analogous but on Friday I was informed that one can no longer park a car at Paddington. The rather ominous phrase was "It will be clamped." If the car were to contain a bomb, the most stupid thing to do would be to clamp it. The bomb would be certain to go off where the car stood. The point is that the restriction causes a lot of inconvenience, especially for the disabled. British Rail does not make any concession, asserting, "That is the law and that is what we have to do".
I listened carefully to the appeals from noble Lords who know the areas well. My anger here is against British Rail and not the people who have made it necessary for the cars to be removed. That is the situation in this country. We have to be careful that the message is clear: when inconvenience is caused to people who have to go about their business or pleasure

1391
one must blame the right people. That consideration applies whether one talks about Northern Ireland or England and Wales. I have considered the position carefully. I know that I cannot blame British Rail. It may be rather stupid in the way in which it operates the restriction, but that is a different matter.
I can imagine a similar situation applying to roads. I am sure that the Government will request a good PR company to put the message over clearly when the legislation finally becomes law.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The Minister earlier welcomed an intervention which referred to the difficulty of using the term "reasonable" in courts. It was stated that it tended to produce lengthy debate. The amendment proposes to shift the burden of proof in a way that is not normally applicable in common law and in British courts, yet at the same time the accused person has to provide a reasonable excuse. Do not precisely the same objections apply to this provision as were welcomed by the Minister when they related to the other side of the argument?
Viscount Brookeborough: It is very reasonable for the person to have to prove why he has equipment so close to the Border. We refer to places where it is conceivable that the Border could be opened if certain equipment was used and filling was placed into ditches, rivers and so on.
I have experience of such a situation. It is not difficult to tell whether the farmer is draining his field or is about to open a border crossing. It is clear to any reasonable person. There is no problem. We are not talking about stopping every single farmer the moment he drives within 200 metres of every border and saying, "Hold on. What are you doing now? Are you about to cut your hay or are you cutting a path in order to get a terrorist or a car over that crossing?"
One is not only referring to opening such areas, but to places that have been closed and blocked with concrete. One is not talking of a man with a shovel pottering across his field to open a ditch that is blocked, but to fairly major works. We heard a moment ago about the crossing point nearest to Derryard. It was recently closed. A military patrol which was reasonably close to it was meant to watch the crossing point, not to react to anyone there, but to call in others. People appeared in order to reopen the crossing. The military patrol informed others of what was going on. Then, within 10 minutes, 10 tonnes of concrete were emptied from a large drum, and the crossing was reopened.
We are dealing with people's lives. We are considering soldiers killed at Derryard and mortar bombs brought into Newtown Butler. Terrorists come into Northern Ireland, and when someone is killed they can drive away across the Border. We know that the Republic of Ireland cannot provide the security that we are able to provide on our side. Where straight roads cross the Border they have been used not only for entry but, more importantly, for people to get away. Before the border checkpoints and border closures were brought in in 1980 in South-East
1392
Fermanagh we had one person killed every six weeks. By "we" I refer to Roman Catholic and Protestant soft targets.
As the Minister said earlier, we are talking of people's lives. It cannot be a problem for a farmer to justify whether he is draining his field, cutting his hay or cutting a hedge. Having lived close to the Border, I do not support the amendment under any circumstances.
Lord Belstead: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, I am not sure at what point earlier today I made remarks about "reasonable" except in the context of "reasonably necessary". My noble friend Lord Elton put his finger on the point. It is a pretty closely targeted offence. It has to take place within 200 yards of a border crossing. All that is being asked is an explanation for the equipment.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough explained the equipment to which we refer. It is invariably heavy equipment in the possession of that person. Under those circumstances, it is sensible to place the onus on the people concerned to give the explanation. Nobody else can. Only they can explain why they have that form of heavy machinery, hardcore or some such item. It should not be difficult for someone who is wholly innocent quickly to explain to anyone who wishes to listen why he should not come within the ambit of that offence.
Lord Prys-Davies: My noble friend Lady Phillips asked an important question: has this offence the potential to cause resentment among people living or working within 200 yards of road closure works? That question has not been addressed. If there is resentment, then the paramilitaries are likely to exploit it. If that happens, we are entitled to ask: what has been achieved by this new offence?
I believe still that the onus of proof should not be on the defendant. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggested that perhaps we ought not to pursue this amendment but to bring forward a substitute for subsection (3) (a) (ii). That is a matter that I wish to consider. For that reason, I do not propose to ask the Committee for its opinion on this clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Supplementary provisions]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 19, line 22, after ("aircraft") insert ("—

(a) the reference in subsection (6) of that section to the address of the premises, or a description of the place, where the document or record was found shall be construed as a reference to the location of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft when it was found together (in the case of a vehicle) with its registration number; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor consequential amendment to the record-keeping requirement provided for in Clause 22 so as to apply record keeping to examinations of documents during the search of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We are pleased to welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 19, line 48, at end insert:
(" (6A) The requirement to make a record of a search under subsection (1) or (2) of section 19 above shall apply in the case of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft (other than one which is habitually stationary) searched by virtue of this section only where t tie search takes place after the vehicle, vessel or aircraft is removed for the purpose of the search by virtue of subsection (5) above; and in the case of such a search—

(a) the reference in subsection (7A) of that section to the address of the premises, or a description of the place, which is searched shall be construed as a reference to the location where the vehicle, vessel or aircraft is searched together (in the case of a vehicle) with its registration number; and

(b) the references in that section to the occupier of the premises or place searched shall be construed as references to the person in charge of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment applies the same requirement to make a record during the search of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft as the requirement introduced for dwelling houses and premises under the government amendment to Clause 19. However, the requirement would apply only where a vehicle, vessel or aircraft was removed for the purposes of the search; for example, to a vehicle search centre.
The amendment provides that references in Clause 19 to the address and occupier of a premises shall be construed as references to the location where the vehicle. vessel or aircraft was searched and to the person in charge of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Directing terrorist organization]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 20, leave out ("at any level".).
The noble Lord said: Clause 27 relates to involvement in directing terrorist organisation. We on these Benches totally accept the desirability of a clause with the aim that it appears to have: to get at the "godfathers" who manipulate people, often young men, young zealots. They send them out to kill and to be killed, but such godfathers do not put themselves at risk. In a shadowy way they direct the activities of others. It is right that the Government should seek special powers to deal with such people.
I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together. They are designed to improve Clause 27 by making it more precise. I am anxious about the words:
"Any person who directs, at any level, the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism".
My Amendment No. 19 proposes the deletion of the words "at any level". The words are vague and have the effect of diluting the meaning of the word "direct". "To direct" means being in charge and making the decisions that matter. In doing so one is shaping the course of events. However, the inclusion of the words "at any level" tends to make more vague a phrase that is intended to have a precise meaning.
When the amendment was debated in another place the Minister argued that the phrase "at any level"—be it at national, regional or local level—was meant to
1394
indicate the levels of organisational responsibility but was nevertheless giving direction. If that was the Government's intention it has not succeeded. The phrase "direct at any level" might, to take an extreme example, be applied to the activities of a cleaning lady who directs the washing up. In doing so she is directing at a level the activities of an organisation. I hope that in reply the Minister will not say that it is a matter of common sense. We are dealing with the law and with a precise targeting of action. I hope that he will be able to accept my argument.
The issue is even more serious because Clause 27 continues:
"the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism".
Amendment No. 20 seeks to deal with that provision because it increases the vagueness. Why should it not simply relate to a prescribed organisation? What is the new category of,
"an organisation …concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism"?
Perhaps the description contains a meaning that has eluded me and the Minister can enlighten the Committee.
As it stands the provision could apply to an animal rights organisation which deplorably decided to destroy cages of animals. That is an act of violence capable of being included in such terms. To torture my analogy, one could have a cleaning lady working for an animal rights organisation committed to destroying cages of animals. She would be a person directing at a level,
"the activities of an organisation…concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism".
I ask the Minister to look carefully at the wording of the clause. I hope that in doing so he will accept our wish to catch the planners and the directors who really do the harm. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. Clause 27 is important because it creates a new offence which can attract a sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is necessary, but it is important that the wording should be correct. If not, I fear that it will become a glorified source of litigation until its meaning is determined, probably by the judicial committee of this Chamber. I too had understood that the object of the clause was to target those involved in guiding the terrorist activities of a terrorist organisation. However, it appears to be targeted at every person who is directly or indirectly involved at any stage or at any level in the organisation. Is that its intention?
The clause is based on the verb "to direct". A director is a person who directs. In 1957 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave judgment in the case of Bolton Engineering v. T. J. Graham & Sons. He used the vivid metaphor of a director being the brains and nerve centre of the company as contrasted with its hands which hold the tools and act in accordance with directions from the centre. The clause appears to be extended to include the hands which hold the tools. It would include the smallest cog, which is not directing the activities of the organisation but merely acting in

1395
accordance with the directions. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, gave a couple of illustrations to which I could add. Every organisation has a clerk. Is he to be treated as directing for the purposes of this clause because, for example, he addresses or directs an envelope?
I had considered tabling an additional amendment to insert the word "senior" before the word "level" so that the clause would deal with directing at a senior level. Will the Minister comment upon such an amendment? I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
Lord Colnbrook: I am confused about the issue which appears to depend on the meaning of the word "direct". The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, quoted from a judgment which appeared to state that the director was the chap sitting at the top and that everyone else was not a director. By deleting the words "at any level" one is leaving out everyone except the boss. I suspect that in a terrorist organisation there are people at the centre planning all the activities. Certainly we wish to catch them.
However, the IRA, for instance, issues general directions to what it calls active service units, and other organisations have the same kind of bodies. Although there is someone in charge of that unit he may not press the trigger. He may be the man who says to his subordinates, "We have directions to cause trouble in Londonderry by shooting some policemen. You two are going to go and shoot that particular policeman". That man is a director but he has not pressed a trigger; he told someone else to do it. By deleting the words "at any level" one is running the risk of allowing such a man to say, "I was not directing; the director was my boss who lives in Dublin".
I am sure that that is not the intention of the amendment. I am as keen as other Members of the Committee to catch everyone directing an operation at any level, not only the man who pressed the trigger or put the bomb underneath the car. The issue depends on the interpretation of the word "direct". I am not a lawyer but I believe that the inclusion of the phrase "at any level" makes the provision more rather than less clear.
Lord Belstead: In moving the first of these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has made clear that he agrees with the principle and intent of a new offence of directing the activities of a terrorist organisation which is aimed at catching the godfathers of terrorism. However, the noble Lord is suspicious of the drafting.
The purpose of the noble Lord's amendment is to limit the extent of the new offence so that it applies only to those persons who direct the activities of terrorist organisations at the highest level. The basic criticism is that the inclusion of the phrase "at any level" makes the offence too wide, and therefore, too draconian in its effect.
Before turning to the specific amendment, I should like to remind the Committee precisely what this new provision is designed to achieve. It is not intended as a way of getting at people who can already be
1396
prosecuted in respect of their involvement in the commission of particular offences. It is, for example, already possible to charge with a conspiracy offence persons who have been engaged in the planning of an act of terrorism which they have played no part in carrying out. I emphasise that the new offence is aimed at those who it may not be possible to link evidentially with particular acts of terrorism, but against whom there is evidence that they are directing or controlling the terrorist organisations which claim responsibility for these acts. Such people are often referred to popularly as the godfathers of terrorism. They may not always get their own hands dirty, and, for that reason, they are at present difficult to make amenable before the law. The new clause is designed to make them open to prosecution.
In trying to do that the noble Lord has criticised as vague the phrase "at any level" and in speaking about Amendment No. 20 the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, criticised the use of the word "directing". The phrase "at any level" has been included deliberately in this provision so as to make it clear that anyone who directs the activities of one of these organisations, whether at headquarters, regional or local level, is equally open to prosecution for the offence. I emphasised the word "directs", because of its importance in this short clause. Whatever the level within the organisation of the person charged, the court will have to be satisfied that he has been involved in directing the activities of that organisation. The Government are satisfied that the courts will give that word its ordinary, common sense meaning, which embraces the notion of a controlling influence on the activities in question. Those activities, I remind the Committee, must be the activities of
"an organisation involved in acts of terrorism".
The noble Lord criticised that, but the phrase is important in this context. Directing, even at "any level", the activities of such an organisation involves, in common sense terms rather more than, as the noble Lord suggested, the cleaning lady who is invigilating the washing up or, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, suggested, a clerk who is addressing an envelope.
But the expression "at any level" was also chosen for another importance reason: it gives specific recognition to the fact that some terrorist organisations have in place regional and other geographical structures. There are, of course, within those organisations, those who direct the terrorist campaign at the highest—the national—level. But below that, organisations may be sub-divided into regional or local commands. As my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said, it would of course be ludicrous if a senior figure at local level in a terrorist organisation could evade prosecution simply because he could claim that there were others higher up in the overall chain of command. Indeed, it would remove much of the effect of the clause.
We then moved on to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, speaking to Amendment No. 20 which seeks to insert the word "terrorist" because in order for a person to fall foul of this offence he must be directing the terrorist activities of an organisation.

1397
Although originally I was interested to read this amendment, I was even more interested to read the briefing which shows that quite inadvertently the amendment could make the clause of almost no effect. As presently drafted the clause will apply to any person who directs at any level the activities of a terrorist organisation. However, Amendment No. 20 would apply the offence only to those involved in directing the terrorist activities of such organisations. To prove that the person is responsible for directing the acts of terrorist activities, it will be necessary to show a connection between the accused person and particular terrorist acts. If such a connection could be shown the individual concerned could be found guilty of an offence under the existing law.
As I have already explained, the new offence is not intended as a way of getting at people who can already be prosecuted for their role in connection with particular acts of terrorism. It is aimed instead at those backroom organisers who it may not be possible to link with the planning or organisation of specific terrorist acts (although they may have been so involved), but who it can be shown are the directors or leaders of terrorist organisations, responsible for formulating the overall strategy of these organisations or otherwise engaged in their organisation and management at national, local or regional level.
There is another possible effect which also troubles me. Terrorist organisations are composed, to some extent, of different groups with different specialisations. In addition to those who actually plan and carry out acts of terrorism, there are others in the organisation who direct other functions such as intelligence gathering, recruitment and quartermastering and so on. Arguably, the carrying out of such functions represents terrorist activity. But would that necessarily be regarded as the case if this amendment was passed? I hope so, but I would not be sure. The new clause, which would increase the possibility that such persons might in future be more open to prosecution, could be fatally wounded if both amendments are accepted.
I am sorry to sound so downright on this point but I believe that in different ways these two amendments will unintentionally degut the clause. For that reason, I ask the Committee not to agree to either of them.
Lord Hylton: I invite the Minister to tell us whether the imprisonment for life provided by this clause is a maximum or mandatory sentence for anybody, whoever is convicted under it. As has been made clear, we must understand that this is a new type of offence.
Is the Minister able to say something about the meaning of "concerned"? It may be that that word has a very wide meaning and could embrace organisations or groups other than the principal terrorist organisations. If that is the case, a life sentence may be too great It may be the sort of offence which would normally attract one or two years' imprisonment.
Lord Belstead: It is proposed to be a maximum sentence.
Lord Blease: I do not wish to add to the confusion but in Northern Ireland in colloquial terms "terrorist"
1398
refers to one side of the community and "paramilitary" refers to the other. I should like to be sure that "terrorist" means any organisation carrying out acts of evil against the community.
Lord Belstead: That is one reason that we used the expression with which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, takes issue. We have not used the word "terrorist" but we have talked about organisations concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the Minister for the terms in which he has replied. As regards Amendment No. 19 he has not moved in the direction in which I hoped he would. However, I shall accept that his intention is the same as ours.
However, I urge on him the point made implicitly by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that an offence which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment is, by definition, extremely serious. Therefore, both in terms of the deterrent value and the effect of putting away for a very long time the godfathers and in terms of our concern that the wrong people should not be caught by this provision—the little fry rather than the big fish—I hope that the Government will continue to look hard at the matter throughout the passage of the Bill. The words "at any level" have created confusion on this side of the Committee and, therefore, the Minister must acknowledge it possible that they may do so among a wider constituency. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Possession of items intended for terrorist purposes]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 22, line 12, after ("if") insert ("when not at his place of abode").
The noble Lord said: Clause 30 stems from the recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who I am pleased to see is in his place this afternoon. The noble Viscount was told by the RUC and the armed forces that new offences were required to assist them in their work. In his report he said that he was satisfied that it should be possible to create an offence which would be closely related to that of going equipped for theft. A person would therefore be guilty of an offence if he was caught on his way to commit an act of terrorism and had with him an article to be used in connection with such an act.
We fully support the creation of such an offence. We support also the draft wording of the offence which appears in Appendix 2 of the report. However, Clause 30 goes much wider than the draft wording. Having called the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in aid, I must acknowledge that he agreed in his report that the offence might be adapted to conditions and circumstances at the place of abode. As it stands the clause is a sweeping clause. It applies to any article present in a person's home and therefore it could cover a wide variety of everyday articles; for example, a

1399
clock, a torch or piping. The amendment states that the place of abode should be exempt from the operation of the clause.
We are concerned also about the burden of proof. Clause 30 must be read in conjunction with Clause 12. The virtue of Clause 12 is that, if any article and a person are both present in the premises or the premises are habitually used or occupied by that person, it will be for him to establish that he did not know of the presence of the article or that he had no control over it.
In our view Clause 30 is a complex clause. Our second amendment seeks to transfer the burden of proof only in those circumstances where the article had been adapted for use or was an article which could specifically be used for an act of terrorism. Only in those circumstances would the burden of proof be reversed. Therefore, if a detonator is found on premises or on a person, then the burden of establishing that it was held for innocent purposes or that it was not known that it was in the building would be on that person. If the article had been adapted for use in an act of terrorism—for example, if the person had an alarm clock and plugs had been soldered into it—it would be for him to establish that he had the clock for innocent purposes or that he did not know it was on the premises. In circumstances where the article had been made or adapted for use in connection with an act of terrorism, it is right that the duty should be on the individual to show that he was in innocent possession of that article.
We on this side have a fear, which emerged more than once in the course of the discussions this afternoon, that if the clause is not modified along the lines of the amendment it will leave wide open the opportunity for people to be harassed in relation to this specific offence. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I believe that my noble friend would be in some difficulty if he accepted the amendment. Let us envisage this situation. Supposing there is a man whom the police know is in possession of a hand grenade. He is walking along the street on his way home. If they catch up with him before he reaches his home then he has committed an offence; but, if the amendment is accepted, as soon as he enters his home or place of abode no offence of possessing the hand grenade will be committed.
A further point arises. What is his place of abode? For example, does it include his garage? He may have a Kalashnikov rifle in his car waiting to be used as soon as he drives his car out. Is that man to be exempt? Normally one's place of abode includes one's garden. A garden could be very large and the man could be sitting in his garden with an offensive weapon ready to be used perhaps against anyone who passes along the hedge at the end of the garden or in the road. I find that idea very difficult.
It may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the fears he expresses are to a considerable extent covered in subsection (2), which states,
1400
"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence the article in question was not in his possession for such a purpose as is mentioned in subsection (1)".
In those circumstances it would be better to leave the clause as it stands without incorporating the two amendments.
Lord Elton: I endorse everything that my noble friend says and believe that the difficulty is perhaps narrower than he thinks. I strongly suspect that the possession anywhere of a hand grenade or a Kalashnikov rifle is an offence carrying a considerable penalty.
Clause 30 is aimed at lengths of control cable which may be alleged to be for lighting purposes, or radio transmitters which may be said to be controlling model aeroplanes. A judgment must be made as to whether they are in fact for the purposes of lighting an outdoor festival or controlling a model aeroplane, or, by one means or another, causing an explosion and the loss of life. If the latter then there is a certain absurdity in the amendment.
The amendment suggests that if the wire is coiled round the person's body as he walks down the street he is committing an offence, but if it is disguised as a washing line but is intended to be used for exactly the same purpose, then he is not. That is beyond reason and I hope that the amendment will be rejected.
6 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I rise at this point to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I give advance notice also that I do not intend to press Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to speak to Clause 30 as a whole. For the reasons just given, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not strictly relevant. We are talking not about weapons but about everyday objects which may be found in the possession of anyone but which found in possession of the wrong person, with the wrong motives, lend themselves to reasonable suspicion that they are to be used for acts of terrorism.
Lord Elton: Or in combination with other objects.
Lord Renton: The clause is not confined to everyday objects. It refers to "any article" which may be used in the furtherance of aggressive purposes.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful for the instruction from noble Lords opposite.
Looked at as a whole the clause has three main problems. The first is that it can be used as regards a person's home. The Committee should start with the presumption that people's homes are their castles and there have to be very strong reasons for the arm of security to reach into people's homes. In that context I ask the Minister specifically why he did not take the advice of his noble friend Lord Colville, who has rightly been referred to often in respectful terms in the context of his report. This is an occasion when the Government have chosen to disregard not only the advice of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and other bodies concerned with these

1401
issues but specifically the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on the question of items within the home.
Secondly, the provision is imprecisely worded. Thirdly, there are very strong punishments. The three elements of reasonable suspicion are vague. The words "connected with" are coupled with the possession of "any article". We know that we are speaking about such things as clocks, maps, pliers, axes and other prosaic items which people will have. The combination of those items with the knowledge that they can be discovered in people's homes and the fact that "reasonable suspicion" is tenuously worded seems to make the provision very widely cast indeed. That gives rise to egitimate concern whether we are striking the correct balance between what we all want, which is the vigorous prosecution of those who threaten public safety, and the civil liberties which commend themselves to the community in Northern Ireland.
I support the amendment. The wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, of,
"when not at his place of abode",
is better than my words of "in a public place". I give advance notice of my intention to withdraw Amend ments Nos. 22 and 23.
Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may first refer to the reasonable suspicion that something in a house may be used for terrorist activity. The provision would not apply quite so much to the individual article. The reasonable suspicion would have already been justified in the application for the search to be made in the first place. We are not talking about any house being entered at any time, when bits and pieces are lifted and the occupier is asked "Are you using this for terrorism?" and so forth. There is a reasonable justification in the first place for searching the house.
When we speak about the kit in the house or what might be used for terrorism, there is a difficulty. Many things are done by the terrorists at home. Mention has already been made of the grenade or the gun which quite clearly contravenes the firearms legislation. When the terrorist constructs a radio-controlled bomb or one of the terrible under-car booby traps, a great deal of mechanism is involved such as mercury tilt switches and timers. Such devices have to be made up very carefully. They cannot be put together beneath a bush on a hillside. They take time to put together and all the pieces have to be available. However, the one item that does not have to be in the house is the explosive. The bomb can be made up without the explosive.
A search may take place because it has been justified by the correct application having been made and the correct procedures followed. One may find in the house the items to which I have just referred. A tupperware box with a powerful magnet attached, with all the bits and pieces to blow up a car, bar the explosive, leaves no doubt what the object is to be used for. There is no charge to cover that situation. If the security forces search a house and find such bits and pieces at present they can do nothing with them so they have. to leave the house. We say to them, "Find the terrorists, find those who are operating these devices". They do so, and then we say, "You cannot
1402
touch these items; but go back home and look under your car. The item could be under your car tomorrow morning".
This provision cannot be compared with the Theft Act 1968. That Act is concerned with screwdrivers and other items commonly used about the home. The people concerned are going equipped for theft but not to commit the horrendous murders that take place in Northern Ireland.
Lord Fitt: I rise because of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He questioned the words,
"when not at his place of abode".
The words are of tremendous importance in the Northern Ireland situation. The noble Lord questioned whether the garage is part of the home. For many people the garage is attached to the house or is an annex to it, but in Northern Ireland many people do not have a garage adjacent to their residence. On an estate with high-rise flats garages may be let out by the local authority. The terrorist may place the material in a garage and, if it is searched, the security forces may take it that the material is the responsibility of the garage occupier.
Throughout this debate it will be noted that I speak from experience. I have not gained my experience from a textbook. The incidents I relate took place during my political life in Belfast. In the early 1970s a friend of mine lived in a flat, with a garage for his van about 200 to 300 yards away. The security forces entered the garage and found bags of gelignite. They went to his home and arrested him. Fortunately, I was there and I was able to tell them that I knew him and in no way could he be involved in acts of terrorism.
That incident shows the validity of the words in the amendment. It should be a defence for those who own outlying stores or garages that they are not to be held responsible for material found in such circumstances.
Lord Hylton: Those of us who are associated with this amendment are not absolutely confident that the wording is right. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has suggested that it might be better to substitute words like "in a public place". I offer the suggestion "within his dwelling-house". These are fine points of detail but it is important that we get them right. The burden of the matter is that there are certain household goods normally found in people's houses such as sellotape, cooking gloves, fuse wire, switches, torches and scissors. We are trying to avoid innocent people being brought to court, harassed or unnecessarily interviewed simply for having such items in their homes. I am sure that is now clear to the Government.
Lord Skelmersdale: Does this not depend on where in the home the items are? We have had recent examples of hides being discovered in people's homes. If an industrial coffee grinder is found in a hide in a person's home, when tested forensically it will almost inevitably carry traces of fertiliser used for the preparation of explosives. For example, if I, with the full authorisation of my commanding officer, went into a house—whether it be in Londonderry, the Falls Road or wherever—and happened to look at a

1403
bookcase and take out the odd book but in doing so discover behind it a pair of washing-up gloves, a balaclava helmet and a screwdriver, I would say that those items were found in "suspicious circumstances". The idea that, in agreeing to this amendment, we should only condone the carrying of these items—that is, not the industrial coffee grinder—on the person, defies belief.
Lord Belstead: The purpose of these amendments is to limit the scope and indeed the penalty of the offence of possession of items intended for terrorist purposes. As all of us who have read the report of my noble friend Lord Colville will know, this is an extremely important clause which owes a great deal to my noble friend's fertile imagination and sense of inventiveness. That is truthfully the origin of the offence. At paragraph 2.7.3 of his report, my noble friend recorded the view that,
"There are now various articles which, though harmless in themselves, are so closely associated with terrorist activities that possession of them, in circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion of connection with terrorism, should be a new offence".
Although I admit at once that the offence in Clause 30 differs from that which my noble friend Lord Colville proposed in his draft clause, it does however give effect to precisely that recommendation.
First, perhaps I may say that the offence as drafted is not out of line with that proposed by my noble friend in relation to the threat to which he drew attention. However, if Amendment No. 21 were to be accepted—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that he would not be moving Amendment No. 22—the offence would no longer apply as regards possession of items in the home. I acknowledge the fact that my noble friend's draft offence excluded possession of items at home.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, asked why we did not accept my noble friend's advice. My noble friend Lord Colville acknowledged that the offence could be extended in the way in which we have extended it. I refer Members of the Committee to paragraph 2.9.7 of his report. On mature consideration, we decided that it was right that the provision should apply to possession of items in the home. The security forces have all too ample evidence of homes being used for making improvised weapons and explosive devices. It would be a serious limitation of the offence were it not to apply to items which were uncovered by the security forces during a legitimate search for munitions and explosives.
Members of the Committee, especially the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made it quite clear that the concern about confining the provision to the home is attached to a worry about the onus of proof. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the dangers of harassment, as he saw it, in having the onus of proof reversed. Amendment No. 24 seeks to limit the scope of the reverse onus of proof in subsection (4) by providing that the onus should only be reversed where an article is proved to have been,
"made or adapted for use in connection with acts of terrorism".
1404
I put it to the Committee that it is well established in British law that a reverse onus of proof is justifiable where the accused is in an especially good position to give evidence about a particular matter. Mercury tilt switches, overalls, rubber gloves, balaclavas and coffee grinders are all innocuous items in the right hands; but, in the wrong hands, they can have very sinister applications.
It was interesting to note that my noble friend Lord Renton counselled caution in the matter. In such circumstances—and I believe that this is what was in my noble friend's mind—it is not unreasonable to require the accused to give an explanation or to show lack of knowledge. Indeed, the accused has only to discharge the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. The prosecution would then have to discharge the overall burden of proof to the higher criminal standard; namely, beyond reasonable doubt. I put that to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
As my noble friend Lord Colville clearly indicated, in many cases the everyday items of which terrorists make use are not adapted in any way or in such fashion as to be clearly intended for terrorist purposes. Therefore, the provision in Clause 30 is not making an explicit distinction of that kind, although clearly where the prosecution could prove that items have been made or adapted specifically for a particular terrorist purpose the charge would be easier to prove.
The clause is terribly important in terms of running to earth munitions, weapons and ordinary things which can cost people their lives. The Government believe that a reverse onus is fully justified in this case.
Lord Prys-Davies: We have drawn attention to the two areas which appear to us to be a source of considerable concern in the Province. The matter has been fully discussed by Members of the Committee. I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division; neither do I propose to return to the matter at a later stage. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 24 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 33 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 34 [Detention orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Prys-Davies: We are much saddened by the fact that the Bill should re-enact the power to detain a citizen without charge or trial. That is a drastic departure from the rule of law. We have often heard it said in this Chamber that it is a fundamental principle of the system of justice in a civilised country that no citizen should be deprived of his liberty without charge and trial. If there is insufficient evidence to bring the citizen before the court on a charge which will deprive him of his liberty, he should not be put away by Executive action. We have also often heard in this place that that principle is not for compromise.

1405
On Second Reading, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether it would be possible for him to arrange to place in the Library a list of the countries which still retain that harsh power. I have not seen such a list, but I have been handed a letter from the Minister which informs me that it is not possible to prepare a comprehensive list. That may be so. However, I should very much appreciate it if a list of the countries known to have retained the power could be placed in the Library. We could then draw our own conclusions. Of course, it may not be easy to draw such conclusions. I say that because we are not necessarily comparing like with like. But it would be helpful if we had such information before us.
On Second Reading the Minister was anxious to tell the Chamber that the power had been retained by the Republic of Ireland. I replied that two wrongs do not make a right. It is certainly not a source of pride that our penal code in this respect is in harmony with countries such as Cuba, Ethiopia and Burma.
The power to detain without charge or trial was granted to Stormont by the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922; but the power has not been used since 1975. It was phased out between 1971 and 1975. It is now agreed by Ministers —Ministers in this Government—that reliance on this power in the early 1970s was a huge mistake in that it led to an immediate and prolonged increase in violence and created further tension and hostility. If one detains 300 persons suspected of involvement in a terrorist organisation, the odds are that one will also detain people who are not involved in a terrorist organisation. If 300 people are interned, they will be replaced by another 300 people. Notwithstanding the historical record and the acknowledgment by Ministers that it was a huge mistake to apply this power between 1971 and 1975, I understand that there are still people who believe that detention without trial is necessary in order to maintain law and order. It was said in another place during a discussion of this clause that it should have been applied quickly and selectively in 1985 after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I mention that as evidence that the Secretary of State of the day could well be provoked into applying internment in response to the pressure of events of the passing hour, or in response to public anger. In our view a Secretary of State should not be placed in that intolerable position. I know of no good reason why this power should be re-enacted. Perhaps we shall hear from the Minister the reasons why this power should be in the Bill. I know of no good reason. On the other hand, there are very good reasons for saying that Northern Ireland has been scarred by the use of the power in the past and that we should now say that we are finished with it in Northern Ireland. The removal of this power from the Bill would signal more than any other decision we take today that the Committee believes that Northern Ireland should and can now move towards normality. I therefore urge the Government, even at this stage, to accept the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that there should be no more detention. I oppose the Question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is fully entitled to ask the Committee to consider whether the power of detention without trial should be continued. I remind the Committee that the power was introduced under an Act of 1978 which had been proposed by the previous Labour Government. The Conservative Government have asked Parliament to keep those provisions going since then. Although the noble Lord is fully justified in asking us to consider this matter, I doubt whether it is sensible that we should have to consider the powers in the light of similar powers being used—and very rarely used—in other countries. Each country must decide for itself on a vital principle of this kind. We must decide this in the light of our own standards—high standards—and traditions of justice. It is contrary to natural justice that we should detain people without trial; but we found that it was necessary to do so in Northern Ireland because, alas, innocent people were losing their lives because of acts of terrorism. It was extremely difficult to find the evidence to convict the terrorists, although the actions of particular people were well known to the police.
In order that we may judge whether these powers should be retained, as the Government now propose, I am sure my noble friend Lord Belstead will give us so far as he is able an account of what has been happening. It would be interesting to know, for example, what proportion of the people who were at first detained without trial were eventually brought to trial. That is the most important factor of all. There is also the power to release people who have been detained. There had to be such a power, and rightly so. It would be interesting to know what proportion of the people eventually could be released without trial. It is on matters such as those, and on other matters about which my noble friend will no doubt let us know, that our judgment will have to be based.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, acknowledged that detention without trial is contrary to the principle of natural justice. It is also contrary to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which this country is a signatory. On these Benches we oppose the Question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill. We ask the Government to recognise that as long as in any part of the United Kingdom there is detention without trial—and may it be a very short time—we are flouting established principles of international law and the law of human rights. We are putting ourselves outside the European Convention and in the position of having to ask for derogation, which is unworthy of us. We oppose the Question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Elton: Detention without trial is contrary to natural justice—but so is terrorism. The Province of Northern Ireland has been subject to the most appalling scourge of injustice for far too long. It is always a retreat in the face of terrorism if, in response to a terrorist attack on fundamental freedoms, one uses as a defence the withdrawal of one of those freedoms. Therefore what the Bill asks for is a power not lightly to be granted. It is a serious matter. Like

1407
my noble friend Lord Renton, I shall listen with great care to what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say in support of the clause. In listening to him, I shall remember the injustice which is far greater, and under which far more people have been suffering for far longer, than the one which detention without trial can ever possibly deliver.
Lord Fitt: Since the creation of the Northern Ireland state, detention without trial (or internment as it was known) has been introduced on five different occasions under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland). On four of those occasions, the persons about to be detained or interned were arrested by the forces of the RUC, the security forces of Northern Ireland. Although this was highly unacceptable, it was understood. In 1971 the Northern Ireland Parliament again sought the permission of the British Government to introduce internment for the fifth time. That time it was not the RUC or members of the special constabulary who arrested those about to be interned; it was members of the British Army.
One has to understand Northern Ireland to know what memories that action evoked: British soldiers in the uniform of the British Army going into nationalist areas and breaking down doors at four o'clock in the morning! I lived on the Antrim Road. At the back of my home was Sheridan Street. I could hear doors being kicked down by soldiers of the British Army. They had sought permission from the British Government to re-introduce internment.
One can recall the tremendous convulsion which overtook the nationalist community in Northern Ireland. One would have to be Irish and a member of that community to understand what happened to it; 400 to 500 people were arrested. Within the following months another 200 to 300 were arrested. Then, in 1972, under the premiership of Mr. Heath, the British Government abolished Stormont. The first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, took over. Immediately he went there, one of the things that he did, as a Conservative—I might have expected this action from a Labour government, but this was a Conservative Secretary of State—was to look through the files of those who had been interned two to three months before and immediately release 300 to 400 of them. He was applying British standards as to who should be interned, if internment were accepted at all.
That fact gives an indication that men were arrested in the swoop of 9th August 1971 who should never have seen the inside of an internment camp. We are still living with the consequences of those acts of 1971. Anyone connected with Northern Ireland, especially the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will remember the song which has worked itself into the psyche of the Irish Catholic and nationalist population. It is known as "The Men behind the Wire". There is a verse in it which goes:
"Through the little streets of Belfast,
In the dark of early morn,
British soldiers came marauding,
Wrecking little homes with scorn".
1408
Another verse goes:
"Cromwell's men are here again".
The song evokes the memory of the 16th and 17th centuries in the minds of nationalists in Northern Ireland.
It is all right in these august surroundings to ask why we talk about the 16th and 17th centuries and Cromwell, because we have all forgotten about it. But the people living in certain parts of Northern Ireland have not forgotten. It is part of their folklore, their mythology, their reason for being. We all know what happened in 1972, the year immediately following internment: 473 people were killed in Northern Ireland, all occasioned by the tremendous upsurge of emotional Irish nationalism which took place. Subsequently, the Labour Government abolished internment, but the fear remains.
Before deciding to go into the Lobby to support my noble friend, I agonised over this matter. I do not speak about such issues lightly, from a political point of view, or with a view to the next election. We do not do that in this place. If I thought that the threat of internment would deter terrorists, I would vote with the Government tonight, because I see terrorism as my enemy. It always has been. If I thought that the retention in the legislation of the power of internment would prevent terrorism, I would have no hesitation in going into the Government Lobby this evening.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has said in the past that there may be reasons for having selective detention. That means that we know everyone whom we are going to intern. The late Lord Faulkner, a former Northern Ireland Prime Minister, thought in 1971 that he knew everyone whom he was going to intern. He believed that the RUC files contained proof that everyone who was about to be detained had terrorist connections. When the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, took over five months later, he found that the selection made in 1971 was not a selection at all; it had proved to be totally indiscriminate.
Again, that action involved the Irish Government. People in the Republic believed that internment was being used selectively against the Catholic nationalist population in Northern Ireland. No Protestants were arrested in the dawn swoop of 9th August 1971. It was clearly understood that internment was being used against the Catholic population. It led to massive demonstrations in the Republic, Northern Ireland and here in London. One does not have to have a long memory to recall the tremendous demonstration by those opposed to internment which took place in London.
Given those considerations, is it wise to retain on the statute book the power to order detention which would give rise to the same emotionalism that we had in 1971? My noble friend has said that two wrongs do not make a right, but it may be—I hope to God that it will not happen—that there is such an upsurge of terrorism in Northern Ireland, and so many people are killed in Northern Ireland, that the Government will have to react and introduce internment. I ask myself whether it would be justified in those circumstances. If it were justified, it would have to be introduced in the

1409
Republic of Ireland at the same time. We could not have detention introduced in Northern Ireland only, because people involved in the commission of terrorist acts would be able to escape over the border into the Republic. That happened in 1971, when many of the terrorists who would have been on everyone's selection list for detention escaped over the border into the Irish Republic.
Many aspects of the introduction of this power will have to be talked over with the people of the Irish Republic. They must recognise that a terrorist in Northern Ireland is a terrorist in the Republic and a terrorist all over the island of Ireland. If I believed that the retention of the clause would deter terrorists, I should be in the Lobby with the Government tonight, but I do not believe that that will be the effect of the clause.
Viscount Brookeborough: I do not like the principle of internment without trial, but nor do I like seeing so many people killed in Northern Ireland. I am sorry if I gave 1 he noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the impression that I knew of all the terrorists in Northern Ireland who should be interned. I do not, but the security forces know a great deal more than they did when internment was first introduced. I do not propose that internment should be reintroduced, but I sometimes wonder why internment remains on the statute book in the Republic of Ireland and in the Act here. Is it perhaps that the two governments have quietly agreed that one day they might both act, or, if they do not talk about it, do they one day hope that if it became necessary they would both be able to introduce it? I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said is correct. If we were to reintroduce internment in Northern Ireland, we would have to impose it in the South; and, what is more, we would need to have total co-operation between the security forces so that people—even if they were not resident in the North or the South—could be picked up on the other side of the Border.
I take the noble Lord's point that previously internment was thought to be used selectively against the Roman Catholic community. However, after the recent horrifying Protestant-instigated terrorist acts, especially in the area of Craigavon and Portadown, I would hope that Protestant so-called Loyalist terrorists would be interned if we reintroduced internment. I do not necessarily want to see internment reintroduced; but if it became necessary, and if it, could be shown that it removed the top tier of terrorists and provided a long enough pause in terrorist activity in Northern Ireland to show everyone there what it was like to live without terrorism and therefore to reject any resurgence of it, I would support selective internment in those circumstances. I support the clause.
Lord Monson: Further to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I wish to put the following proposition to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and those who support him on this matter. Although quite a considerable number of people have died as a result of terrorism in other democratic parts of Western Europe since World War II—for example, in Corsica,
1410
Spain, Italy and, to a lesser extent, West Germany—in no case has the number of deaths remotely approached the total in Northern Ireland, either absolutely or proportionately. That makes a difference to the situation. I suggest that if by any mischance proportionately as many people were killed in other countries of Europe as a result of increasing terrorism, those countries too might well consider the introduction of internment.
Lord Blease: The two lines of Clause 34 are the most controversial and the most difficult of this 79-page Bill. Sadly, dark days are still being experienced in the Province of Northern Ireland. Internment has had to be introduced in Northern Ireland on some five occasions. However, the occasion when it was introduced in 1971 stands out vividly in my mind. I agree with the principle that a person should not be imprisoned unless the due processes of the law have been followed.
I ask the Committee to turn to the four pages of Schedule 3. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 bears the heading "Interim custody orders". After the introduction of the legislation which introduced special powers, there was a period of detention before internment. It was during that period in 1971 that I pleaded for the detention period to be prolonged. I realised that would result in people being imprisoned for long periods without being charged.
I fear very much what may happen in the future. I realise that if an uprising occurs in either or both communities in Northern Ireland, the due processes of law cannot be administered in a normal manner by arresting and charging people. I feel that interim custody orders would be more acceptable than internment at the present time in Northern Ireland. It may be necessary to detain people under some form of custodial arrangement where the normal processes of law could not be followed in a manner that would conform to international agreements.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I spoke for quite long enough on this subject on Second Reading. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that I used on that occasion. One of the advantages of being a Member of this Chamber is that one can learn from the experiences of people who have been born and bred in different parts of the British Isles. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Fitt and Lord Blease, and to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough.
My experience of Northern Ireland is minuscule compared with that of those noble Lords. However, during my time in Northern Ireland the only time I heard executive detention being talked about was when I bullied people into responding to my questions on that subject. People had plenty of opportunities to mention that matter to me. I talked to many people all over Northern Ireland in hospitals, social security offices and on farms. They could have talked to me about any subject under the sun but they did not mention detention unless I asked them a specific question about it.

1411
As my noble friend Lord Elton has said, this is a swingeing and unusual power. My noble friend did not express it quite like that. However, terrorism is a swingeing and unusual subject that we have to deal with. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, left me with the impression that he has been asking himself the wrong question. Surely the question we should all be asking ourselves is what effect the removal of detention will have on terrorism and its hangers on in Northern Ireland. It is that matter that worries me.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill. I have added my name to the names of others who oppose that clause. I did so for four reasons. First, the presence of such a provision as this on the statute book is to my mind one of the biggest and perpetual indications of political failure in Northern Ireland. It is a sign of political abnormality and an admission that there is no end in sight to political violence in Northern Ireland.
Just outside Lampeter in West Wales someone had painted on a bridge the words, "Smash H Blocks: Britain's Belsen". I do not approve of graffiti; but that made me think. I tried to imagine what it would be like to have internment in Wales, even for people of whom I strongly disapprove. I simply cannot conceive of it there or in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, it provides the paramilitaries with a useful diversion from their own misdeeds. It can surely be no accident that after every major paramilitary atrocity their representatives leap to the media and spread around the rumour that internment is about to be re-introduced. By pointing to the abandonment by government of the rule of law, they are able to make extremely useful propaganda and to divert attention from their crimes.
Thirdly, because of its discriminatory aspect, internment is perpetually politically divisive. Rather than provide a period of calm, it inflames community tensions and reminds people that the previous use of internment in 1971 is still popularly associated with forms of ill-treatment which led to a condemnation of Britain by the European Court of Human Rights.
Fourthly, internment breeds violence. On the previous occasion that internment was used, the level of violence increased dramatically. In 1971, 173 people were killed. In the first full year after the introduction of internment in August 1971, 474 people were killed. Internment is therefore closely associated with a tripling of the rate of killing. The major fall in violence took place in 1977 once internment had been removed and the emphasis placed on securing convictions in a court of law. Internment is counter-productive to peace.
Throughout the last terrible decades internment has often provided what successive generations of IRA members have called the university of the revolution. That is one university, and the only university, that I should be delighted to see closed down.
Lord Belstead: I must begin by paying tribute to the cogent arguments put forward by my noble friend
1412
Lord Colville in his report advocating removal from this legislation of the provisions relating to executive detention. Although the conclusion which the Government have reached is different from that of my noble friend, that should not be taken to imply that we do not recognise and accept the strength of feeling about the powers in relation to the events of the early 1970s in some parts of the community in Northern Ireland. Many factors have changed since then but the lessons of the past should remain powerful in our memory.
That said, I very much respected the points made so clearly and eloquently on this Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in his first intervention in a Northern Ireland debate. However, in relation to the four points which he made, I should mention that we are not talking about internment, which was last used, as the noble Lord said, in the early 1970s. As the Committee will know, that was replaced at the time of the beginning of direct rule by a system of detention with an appeal tribunal and a regular review procedure. Those procedures were in turn replaced in 1975 as a result of the report of Lord Gardiner. Lord Gardiner's recommendations were included in the 1978 Act by the Government of noble Lords opposite and are now, to the greatest extent, replicated by what is Schedule 3 to the Bill. So, as my noble friend Lord Renton rightly said, we are talking about whether, by agreeing to Clause 34 and not agreeing to the Motion before us, we leave on the statute book procedures which originated in the report of Lord Gardiner and which are now in Schedule 3.
At the time of the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked for a list of those countries which have powers similar to those in Clause 34 of the Bill. I must apologise that I was only very recently able to reply. I replied saying that practice and legal provision vary widely around the world, that no list that I could provide would be comprehensive and that I should not want unintentionally to mislead either the noble Lord or other noble Lords who see my letter, which has been deposited in the Library.
There are many countries which subject their citizens to administrative detention. However, in saying that, I must draw two important distinctions—first, between those countries which operate the power on a regular basis and those which preserve the power only for use in the gravest emergency; and, secondly, between the detention of those who seek to demonstrate political dissent from authoritarianism and the detention of individuals suspected of involvement or potential involvement in acts of murder and terrorism within a democratic society.
As my noble friend Lord Colville observed, it has been a matter for much rejoicing that countries which previously exercised powers of detention without trial against political dissidents have now abandoned those powers and resorted to the rule of law. Equally, it is important to observe that a number of democratic societies, faced with the threat of internal terrorism or similar threats to the integrity of society and human life, have powers similar to Clause 34 held in reserve.

1413
A very relevant example is the Republic of Ireland, which simply retains executive detention on its statute book.
Were we completely to remove the powers of detention from this legislation, we should effectively be forfeiting any possibility of using them, at any rate in a manner which might prove effective. Although, theoretically, new legislation could be introduced in an emergency, it could not possibly be introduced and debated without giving substantial forewarning to those who might otherwise risk being detained. Then, when looked for, the birds would have flown, and as my noble friend Lord Colville records in his report, extradition could not be used in a detention case to bring them back again.
We believe that, so long as we have to contemplate the outside possibility that the security situation in Northern Ireland might require that detention be used to prevent loss of life, it would be wrong and imprudent to sweep those powers from the statute book altogether. I remind the Committee that, in the event of the unthinkable and the power being used, the Government have to come to Parliament within 40 days for approval. That was a measure which was put on to the statute book when my noble friend Lord Colnbrook was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Therefore, for the reasons that I have given, I beg the Committee not to agree to the Motion. This is a Bill which, as I hope has become clear this afternoon, is full c f safeguards. However, it would not give the right signal to terrorists to sweep these particular powers away from the statute book for good and all at the present time.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should like to make it clear that we are not suggesting that we must decide this issue in the light of what is happening in other countries. I do not suggest that for one moment. However, we do suggest that it would be unwise to take the decision without being aware of what is happening in the civilised world and how other countries conduct their affairs when faced with internal threat to their existence. Indeed, it was the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who reminded us in his review that he had met difficulty in raising human rights issues in the United Nations because of provisions in British law such as internment.
I have listened with considerable sadness to the Minister's words. I am saddened that the Government have not been persuaded to accept the wise recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I asked the Minister to spell out to the Committee why the Government wanted this harsh power and under what circumstances the power would be activated. The Minister has not specified a single condition which must be satisfied before the power can be activated.
The Committee should not derogate to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the power to activate internment without at least spelling out on the face of the Bill the conditions which must be satisfied before that power can be exercised. There is not a single condition on the face of the Bill. It is to be a policy option, to be applied as a kind of reserve power.
1414
But Parliament does not legislate for policy options, its legislation is based on policies which have already been formulated.
In our view there is no way that this power can be modified. However, if it is the intention of the Government, as it is, that this power should be re-enacted then that must be with the consent of this Committee.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 38.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Ingrow, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Astor, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bethell, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Mar, C.

Blyth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Monson, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Moran, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Palmer, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Coleraine, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Stockton, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strange, B.

Elton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Flather, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B

Gridley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hanson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Waddington, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L

Henley, L.

Westbury, L.

Hives, L.

White of Hull, L

Hood, V.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gregson, L.

Attlee, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Birk, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hylton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Falkland, V.

Lockwood, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Longford, E.

Fitt, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Pitt of Hampstead. L.

1415

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Seear, B.

Underhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Walston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Winstanley, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 34 agreed to accordingly.
Viscount Long: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at five past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Bill
7.7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am glad to have the role of introducing into your Lordships' House this Bill which has passed through all its stages in another place. It was a Private Member's Bill in the other place, supported in all parts of that House. The private Member concerned is the honourable gentleman Mr. Calum MacDonald, the Member for the Western Isles, and he has earned warm congratulations, with which I am sure we join, for piloting the Bill through. In the annual Ballot in another place, he featured in the list of the first 20, but not in the first six who are guaranteed adequate time for a Private Member's Bill. Nonetheless, he steered the Bill through, obtaining enough time for debate for those who wished to comment. He has taken great personal trouble over it and I think that he will be rewarded by success when, as I hope, it is enacted and enters into force. He has acknowledged receiving help supplied in drafting by the Scottish Office and I do so too. The Government support the purposes of the Bill.
To avoid confusion, I must make clear that it is the same Bill as that presented in the last Session of Parliament by my honourable friend Sir Hector Monro. He knew that there was no time then for the Bill to make progress in Parliament, but he performed a useful service by enabling it to be studied and discussed by those who would be most closely affected by its consequences. As a result, the Bill has the approval of the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Landowners' Confederation and the Crofters Commission. Work in preparing the Bill included consultations with local authorities and environmental organisations which, I understand, have given helpful, constructive advice.
Crofting tenure is the land system obtaining in the area known as the crofting counties. Nowadays, it is not easy to delineate that area. Local government reorganisation in 1975 removed the term "county" from Scotland. There have also been changes in local authority boundaries. The legislation governing crofting was considerably reformed by the 1976 Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act with the aim of meeting modern conditions. I was the Secretary of State for Scotland who introduced the Bill which led
1416
to that Act. Perhaps that is the reason why I have been asked to sponsor the Bill in this House. In 1974 my Bill had a Second Reading in the other place but could proceed no further and was lost because a general election was called. That Bill was reintroduced by the successor Labour Government, illustrating that on this subject there was in general a bipartisan view on the part of the main political parties.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the grazing committee of a crofting township to engage in forestry on common grazings land without that land having to be withdrawn from crofting tenure. For crofters and landowners it adds an option to what is now possible. They can still take the land out of crofting tenure if they wish to on planting trees. The purpose of the Bill is consistent with changes taking place elsewhere in Britain's countryside. Farmers are being encouraged to incorporate woodlands on their land in their husbandry. In recent years shelter belts have been encouraged as well as timber planted on livestock farms. This policy is highly relevant in present conditions of over-production of cereals and other farm commodities in Western Europe. The United Kingdom has to import about 90 per cent. of its timber requirements. Growing more at home cannot fail to be helpful even though to start with the quantities will certainly be small.
Clause 1 enables the grazings committee of a township to use any part of the common grazings for planting woodlands. I must explain to those not familiar with crofting legislation that the word "township" is a technical term. It means a group of crofters (perhaps only a dozen) working together. As for the buildings, there may be only half a dozen—nothing remotely resembling a town. The approval of the Crofters Commission and the consent of the landlord are required. As stated by the Minister when the Bill was being considered in the other place:
"The terms of any agreement on planting are a matter for settlement between the landlord and the crofters undertaking the planting".
Clause 2 makes changes in the existing legislation required as a consequence of the proposals in Clause 1. Clause 3 extends to crofting land grants now available for forestry and woodland elsewhere under forestry and agricultural legislation. Trees are a long-term business compared with agriculture. Several (sometimes many) years must pass before there is a return on investment. However, it has been estimated that over the full period of the forestry cycle the income from woodlands on crofting land is likely to be as good or better than that from staple crofting commodities such as sheep.
I should like to draw attention to a particular advantage to crofting land which the effects of the Bill should produce. The shelter which woodlands can provide will be beneficial to livestock. With careful planting the same quantity of livestock can be grazed efficiently even though the area for grazing has been reduced. Although much of the Highlands was covered with forest 300 years ago, a great deal was felled for use during the industrial revolution. Disinterest in replanting in those days and subsequent erosion have led to the present scarcity of trees in crofting areas. Some land will be unsuitable for

1417
forestry, but where trees are appropriately planted they can enhance the scenery and environment so improving amenity generally while becoming a welcome new crofting crop. The ability to plant and grow trees within crofting tenure will add a useful new activity for crofters in areas where more trees will improve the countryside, and home-grown timber is needed by the nation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his introduction of the Bill and the full account he gave of its purposes and the results of its becoming law. I am pleased that he paid tribute to my ionourablek friend in another place, Calum MacDonald, who, as he said, is from the crofting counties. It is rather nice to come to Westminster and get something through which directly and almost solely affects your own people. This Bill is particularly in tune with the times because, as we know, agriculture has been through a rather difficult period. Therefore, if crofting groups can agree and get the permission of the Forestry Commission and the landowner to use part of I he common land for forestry it will obviously be an immediate advantage to them because of the grants. In addition, as the noble Lord said, there will be an advantage ultimately because increased timber production in Scotland, however small it may be, will provide a welcome product. I very much welcome the Bill, as I hope the House will, and again thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the way he introduced it.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I should like to say how strongly I endorse the outline of the Bill given by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. It is heartening to find that there is at least one thing under discussion politically in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands, which reaches a conclusion to which we can all be party. I am delighted to hear Lord Carmichael say he gives his support and that of his party to the proposals outlined by my noble friend.
Anything which can encourage woodland in the Highlands must be good. So far as agriculture is concerned, shelter is of vital importance. Indeed, the regeneration of the habit of woodland growing—which I hope will include broadleaf—is something which w? must all applaud. My noble friend has done an excellent job of research in preparing his notes for tonight. I hope we shall give him every encouragement and that the Bill will have a quick passage.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I should like to associate this Bench with what has been said. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for the way in which he introduced the Bill and endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in supporting it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I am
1418
very glad to have the opportunity to welcome this Bill which was so ably presented by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. Quite rightly he referred to Mr. Calum MacDonald in another place and to my honourable friend Sir Hector Monro, both of whom played an important part in creating the consensus mentioned by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. It is very important that we should have that consensus. It is a delight to be able to speak in this House on a Bill that has aroused so much support from all the Benches in this Chamber.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned, the Government support the Bill. As has been explained, it enables grazings committees to plant trees on commons grazings. The Bill provides a crofter with an alternative use for crofting land subject to suitable safeguard and makes government assistance available through the relevant grant schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was quite right to mention the challenges that are facing agriculture, particularly in fragile rural areas where because of climatic problems it is increasingly difficult to make a return. This Bill offers people an alternative. It gives them an option which I am sure will help them in the future. I am confident that this House will support the Bill. I willingly give my support to it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I thank them for the welcome that they have given from all sides of the House to these proposals. We all agree that the honourable gentleman Mr. Calum MacDonald has done a great service by obtaining agreement on proposals which we believe will be good for Scotland. I hope that the Bill will have a happy and quick passage through its later stages.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.22 to 8.5 p.m.]

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
House again in Committee.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 44 agreed to.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Code of practice: video recording
—(1) The Secretary of State shall make a code of practice to provide for video recording of interviews of persons detained under this Act or under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
(2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 60 of this Act shall apply to a code under this section as they apply to a code under that section.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 25 proposes the addition to the Bill after Clause 44 of an entirely new clause. It proposes that the Secretary of State shall make a code of practice to provide for video recording of interviews of persons detained under this Bill or under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
In the course of debates in Committee today, we have discussed many important matters of principle. However, I venture to suggest that the issue of video taping suspects is particularly important. In a sense I believe that it is a test case of how sensitive the Government are not only to the rights of the accused but also to the protection of the criminal justice system—which is under close scrutiny after some of the recent deplorable miscarriages of justice of which we are all too well aware—and to the maintenance of faith in the police force.
Of the 319 complaints that were made in 1989 to the independent commissioner for police complaints in Northern Ireland most concerned interviews by the police. No less than 191 were complaints of assault; and 28 were complaints that the interviewee had been forced either to sit down or to stand up against his will. A video tape would have revealed the truth in each instance. Either way, I believe that the police and the justice system would have won. Either the complaints were baseless propaganda, in which case their emptiness would have been exposed; or they were genuine, in which case police bullying would have been exposed, bad apples weeded out, and confidence in the police restored.
As the Government well know, the judgment in Re Gillen in 1988, and the subsequent recommendation of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, both lead in the same direction. Perhaps I may quote the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. He stated:
"It is hard to see how it is possible any longer to resist a system of recording the closed circuit TV signal".
As the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which also supports video recording, indicated, methods are available which, first, would result in a full visual record of what happened and, secondly, would protect detainees from identification and from lip-reading.
It has been said, and understandably, that the introduction of video recording would place an extra workload on the police. No doubt the Minister will comment on that. I can see that there might be practical and financial difficulties. However, I agree with the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights that the need for adequate protection for suspects is a more important consideration. Given the number of complaints about which I have reminded the Committee, is it not possible that the net financial effect might be the same? Fewer complaints would be brought, both genuine and trivial, and therefore less work would be involved in following them through.
A further anxiety is that suspects who incriminate others might be endangering themselves if tape recordings are played in open court. A possible solution would be to hold the relevant part of the proceedings in camera. No doubt the Minister will
1420
comment on that too. The conclusion of the standing advisory commission was that the video recording of the police interrogation of terrorist suspects should be put into operation without delay. The commission and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, have put forward two weighty recommendations. It is the commission's role not to be an irritant to the Government but to deal with such issues in Northern Ireland.
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said about video recording:
"I should not want noble Lords to think that I am simply putting that aside and saying that that has gone. It is a matter which I know noble Lords take seriously. I have listened carefully to what has been said and I should like to give further thought before we come to the next stage of the Bill".—[Official Report, 19/4/91; col. 1696.]
The Committee will be interested to hear the Minister's conclusions. It appears that there are clear recommendations and that the balance of advantage is clearly in favour of video recording. It is an idea whose time has come, and in that spirit I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, which I shall not repeat, I support the amendment. Confidence in the conduct of the police towards detainees in police stations would be enhanced immeasurably if the amendment were accepted.
I too wish to refer to paragraph 4.7.2 of the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. A significant element in the paragraph is that in 1989, 238 complaints were classified as "incapable of being completed". The worry is that during the course of a year there should be 238 complaints incapable of being completed. There is considerable public anxiety about a system which yields so many unresolved complaints. That is an issue which must be tackled and we believe that the way indicated in the amendment is the best way to do so.
That point was made during the course of a hearing in Belfast Crown Court on 24th October 1990. The judge made clear the fact that video recordings of interrogations would resolve disputes which came before him. The Minister and the Government must tackle the issue of unresolved complaints. In video recording they have at hand the answer to what happens in the interview room.
I have heard it said that one cannot record what happens as a suspect walks along the corridor. That may be so, but it is no argument for saying that interrogation in the interview room should not be recorded. The important place is the interview room. There is no problem with resources; the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was satisfied that the amendment could be implemented without great additional expense and without exposing the parties to unnecessary risk. I urge the Minister, whatever his brief, carefully to consider the amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: I am not happy with the amendment. Members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who are involved in such matters have expressed good reasons for not wishing the amendment to be agreed to. They are not worried about the number of complaints or the complaints

1421
which they would like to clear up and which could be cleared up as a result of videoing proceedings in the interrogation cell. The types of complaint that are made would continue to be made at all stages after arrest. The terrorists and the groups that back them are happy to take up extra time in putting forward complaints to undermine the RUC in its endeavours.
There are two reasons why it is not a good proposal. First, events outside the interrogation room would become a matter for complaint. That has always been the case with terrorists. As soon as one complaint was solved by such a measure there would be another about what happened on the route to the interrogation cell. Complaint would then be made about events in the cell in which the suspect was held initially, and then in the vehicle that brought him there.
The most important reason for not supporting the amendment is that a special relationship is built up between the suspect and the interrogator. In a significant number of cases suspects have given their interrogators a great deal of information. They may have completely turned away from terrorism. However, there would be a problem if the interrogation were videoed. No matter what the suspect might be told about the security of the video, it would exist and be available to the right person who could manage to obtain it. Under those circumstances it is seriously thought that some suspects would not give the information that they might previously have given.
There is no way of proving that belief. However, one must accept that some of the successful security operations in Northern Ireland have not been as a result of luck or arisen out of the blue. They have occurred because people in the terrorist organisations are prepared to supply information under certain circumstances. Statistics relating to successful operations carried out by the security forces in Northern Ireland show that those which were the result of pure chance were very few as compared with those which were the result of sound information. By putting video recorders in interrogation cells we should place in jeopardy a major source of information.
There was such an incident a month ago in Downpatrick and another before Christmas. I do not suggest that they were as a result of information given in an interrogation cell. Nor do I make that suggestion about the incident at Loughgall in which 10 or a dozen policemen were killed. As it happened, in that incident the terrorists were killed, as was one innocent victim. If we agree to video recordings, we shall be denying security forces the possibility of changing the effect of their actions. I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: This is an important amendment and I regret that we are taking it relatively late in the evening when very few Members of the Committee are present.
Perhaps I may refer to what the noble Viscount, Lord 13rookeborough, said. Is he aware that interrogations regarding scheduled offences now take place i n only two locations, one of which is Castlereagh? I believe that is the principal location now used. I wonder whether he is also aware that all
1422
interviews taking place in those two centres are supposed to be monitored on closed-circuit television. Therefore, I cannot believe that the special relationship to which he referred, which may be important, will be hampered by making a permanent recording if it is not at present hampered by a recording which is visible outside the interview room.
Perhaps I may go back in time. There has been serious anxiety about the abuse of questioning, interviewing and the general extraction of information from suspects. That goes back at least as far as internment, which we debated earlier this evening. I believe that that formed some of the background of the report by Lord Gardiner. It was certainly one of the major problems examined by Judge Bennett who reported in 1977 or 1978. Following the acceptance of the Bennett Report by the government of the day, we all hoped that excess use of force, violence and questionable techniques had been stamped out. However, it appears that those practices have not entirely ceased.
The complaints now are that people under interrogation are made to stand for long periods; they are shouted at, often at extremely close quarters; and psychological persuasion is used—for example, threats to a suspect's relatives—accompanied by blows, sometimes to the head, the neck and the ears, all of which can be inflicted without causing permanent injury or injury which will show up on later examination. In my view proper exception is being taken to such actions.
Such practices could be brought under control if every major interview of terrorist suspects was permanently recorded on video. I have contacted at least one defence solicitor and one academic who between them have knowledge of a number of cases. The result of the kind of interviews which we are discussing is that confession evidence often has to be tested again in court in advance of the main hearing—a procedure which I understand is known as voire dire. On some occasions medical evidence will be adduced during that procedure. I believe that a great deal of that could be eliminated, as could the physical violence, by proper video recording of interviews.
Because I was anxious about those matters, in the spring of this year I wrote to a number of noble Lords in Northern Ireland and a number of Members of the other place who live in Northern Ireland asking them whether they would be good enough to visit the Castlereagh interrogation centre. In the event it was possible for only one Member of the House of Commons to ask to visit; namely, Mr. Cecil Walker, the honourable Member for Belfast, North. Perhaps I may observe that he has been a magistrate in Northern Ireland and I do not believe that anyone would describe him as being in any way an extremist.
He wrote to police headquarters asking to be allowed to visit Castlereagh. On behalf of the Chief Constable, a chief superintendent wrote him a letter which stated:
"It is not force policy to approve general visits to police offices (holding centres) as to do otherwise would most certainly generate further demand and ultimately interfere with their running".

1423
I question whether that is the right way in which an elected Member of another place should be treated. It seems to me to indicate an undesirable degree of police reticence. I hope that Members of this Chamber will not be refused visits in a similar manner.
I strongly support the amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Fitt: While giving this amendment my full and unqualified support, I believe it right to state that the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has afforded a great deal of knowledge about the affairs of Northern Ireland. It is rare in debates on Northern Ireland to have such a knowledgeable response from the Benches opposite.
The noble Viscount lives in Fermanagh and is in the heat of the situation. He obviously knows policemen. Unfortunately he has known many members of the RUC under the UDR who have been killed. I believe that he brings to this Chamber personal response and knowledge from his community. But the qualifying words are "from his community", although it is right that this Chamber should be aware of what his community thinks about the issues in the Bill.
The noble Viscount said that he knows RUC men and that they oppose the amendment. I know RUC men who would be absolutely in favour of it. The RUC is not a monolithic body. There are over 1,000 Catholics in the RUC. As I said recently, there are more Catholics in the RUC than there are active members of the IRA. I have spoken to those men.
I remember vividly that in 1979 in another place we debated the Bennett Report. At that time we had a Labour Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The debate took place in either January or February. I wish that I had the Bennett Report to hand so that I could quote from it. Although it said that there should be no condemnation of or reflection on the RUC, it went on to list, I believe, six recommendations. It recommended that suspects should not be beaten up and treated cruelly. That meant it was suspected that that had taken place. Without taking the matter further, it may be the Bennett Report in February 1979 and the atmosphere which then prevailed, which led—I put it no higher—to the defeat of the Labour Government in the following month.
It is a situation about which one is terribly perturbed. I would be the last to deny what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said in the Committee tonight. He said that if video cameras were installed it might be impossible to "turn" a terrorist—I believe that is the term used in Northern Ireland. Terrorists have been turned, as we saw in the recent conviction of Danny Morrison only last week, in which an alleged terrorist called Sandy Lynch was turned by the RUC and began to act as a double agent.
We must ask, though we shall never be told, where the turning took place. Did it take place in the interrogation centre of Castlereagh? Did it take place in a car or in a house? All we know—and I accept the evidence of the RUC—is that the turning of Sandy Lynch and the evidence given in court last week led to the saving of a number of lives in Northern Ireland.
1424
However, I do not think we can say that that justifies the practices that have taken place over a number of years in Castlereagh. The turning of that terrorist could have taken place anywhere, not necessarily in Castlereagh.
The acceptance of the amendment would be another weapon in the armoury of the Government against terrorism. I remember as a Member of Parliament the number of people who came to my home—particularly parents, because fathers and mothers see no wrong in what their sons have been doing. They would tell me time after time how their sons had been beaten up in Castlereagh RUC Station. I thought in some cases that it might be true but in the majority of cases I had serious doubts. If a video camera were to be installed and the activities of the police in the interrogation centres were videod, that would lead to the terrorists losing the support within the Catholic community which they now have.
As was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I am prepared to accept that there may be occasions when a terrorist has turned away from terrorism in the holding centre of Castlereagh, but that does not necessarily have to have taken place in the interviewing room where the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, suggests the camera should be placed. The wording and the placing of the amendment is designed to stop giving propaganda victories to the terrorists. I ask the Government to think seriously before rejecting it.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may respond for a moment as my name was mentioned by two noble Lords. First, in case the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave the impression that I live in a totally Protestant, totally Loyalist area, perhaps close to a police station, and that I speak only to those people, I should say that I live in a mixed area with a population of slightly over 50 per cent. Roman Catholics and mixed throughout.
Secondly, I feel that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is based on statistics, as invariably it must be. If there was nothing to worry about we should not be debating the subject. However, one accepts that there were 319 complaints and that some of them were unable to be followed up to the ultimate discovery of what had happened. Even accepting that some of them could be followed up, the number in which there was any complaint that was in any way justified was minuscule. I believe I am right in saying that one might have been made by somebody who managed to show a doctor that he had had his hair pulled. With all due respect, he might have pulled it himself or some other person might have done it. It could be something else, I am not too sure. To bring video closed-circuit recording in for those kind of statistics is not justified and I should not like to see it happen.
Lord Belstead: The purpose of the new clause is to require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make a code of practice requiring the video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects. The noble Lord, Lord Holme intends that the video record

1425
should not be silent—as my noble friend, Lord Colville proposed—but that it should also include sound.
I gave the House an undertaking at Second Reading to give further thought to whether anything more could be done to enhance confidence in police procedures and to protect the rights of suspects in police custody. I shall say something a little later on that I hope will convince noble Lords that the Government take the issue seriously, and are determined that everything possible should be done to enhance confidence in police procedures.
Turning to the purpose of this amendment, which is to require the Secretary of State to introduce video recording, let me start by reiterating that the Government recognise the need for proper and effective safeguards in relation to the police interview process. But we are equally concerned that nothing should be done to jeopardise the effectiveness of the interview process, which remains vital to the police in their efforts to defeat terrorism.
I have to tell the Committee that it is the considered view of senior officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary with extensive experience in these matters, that knowledge that a permanent record—both visual and sound—was being made of his interview would in itself be sufficient to inhibit the responses of a member of a terrorist organisation. The police fear that the introduction of a visual recording alone would have that effect.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Would he confirm that the present standing instruction is that all interviews in the interrogation and holding centres shall be observed by a superior officer on closed circuit television? Is that correct?
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is absolutely right. However, there is a world of difference between it being known, as it is known, that that situation exists—in other words that there is a monitor being watched by a senior uniformed officer—and knowing that a record is being taken, both visual and in sound, of the interrogation which is taking place inside the room. In a moment I shall add to that.
The police fear that the introduction of video recordings would jeopardise the interview procedure. The fear is not new but was expressed in the findings of the Bennett Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred, which came down against the introduction of video recordings. It is worth repeating the words of the Bennett Report:
"The argument that recording increases the inhibitions of the suspect is perhaps less forceful in relation to video recording than in relation to tape recording, but it does not disappear entirely…The evidence of our police witnesses, and our own impression, is that some suspects need to be allowed certain room for manoeuvre in what story they tell afterwards if they are to be frank with the police at the time when they are interviewed".
Noble Lords will know that the terrorist organisations have their own version of summary justice with which to deal afterwards with those whom they suspect of helping the police.
That is the nub of the problem. The Committee should be extremely wary of supporting any measure
1426
whose effect seems likely to be to increase the unwillingness of terrorist suspects to co-operate with their police interrogators. Whatever arrangements were to be introduced to facilitate the video recording of interviews, for the reason which I gave just now to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the Government believe that its introduction could seriously jeopardise the usefulness of the interview process. It would be known that a recording was being made, and anybody knowing that could well fear the day if the recording were to become known to people in their own organisation.
Following Second Reading and in preparation for this debate, I paid a visit to Castlereagh in Belfast to look at the procedures which currently apply to the detention and treatment of terrorist suspects. I was very impressed by what I saw. In the context of the list of complaints which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, read out, there is quite a formidable range of safeguards already in place. Those safeguards include the completion of a detailed custody record which must be opened as soon as practicable for each person who is brought to the holding centre. On arrival at the holding centre, arrangements are made for the suspect to be seen by a doctor. The arrangements include detailed provisions relating to interviews, and an accurate record must be kept of each interview. Written interview records must be timed and signed by the maker. In any period of 24 hours, a detained person must be allowed a continuous period of at least eight hours rest free from questioning, travel or any interruption.
In addition, a person's detention must be reviewed periodically by a review officer. I now refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. All interviews with terrorist suspects are monitored by uniformed officers through closed circuit television. That is the most fundamental safeguard against any physical abuse of the suspect during interview. If a complaint is made by or on behalf of a detained person about his treatment since arrest or if it comes to the notice of any officer that he may have been treated improperly, a report must be made as soon as practicable to an officer of the rank of inspector or above who is not connected with the investigation. If the matter concerns a possible assault or the possibility of the unnecessary or unreasonable use of force, then the medical officer must be called as soon as practicable.
Those are detailed and important safeguards which already exist. Nonetheless, at Second Reading I gave an undertaking to give further thought to whether anything more could be done to enhance confidence in police procedures. I have tabled Amendment No. 41 which we shall shortly come to. It requires the Secretary of State to make a statutory code of practice under the powers in Clause 60 of the Bill, dealing with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects. I have already listed a number of the matters that would be contained in such a code. I hope that the Committee will feel that the Government have thought seriously about the issues. We want to see in place effective safeguards for terrorist suspects.

1427
We believe that existing safeguards are extensive, valuable and capable of being made even more effective by being set out on the face of the Bill in what will be, if Amendment No. 41 is agreed to, a statutory code. Our commitment to make such a code is testimony to the seriousness with which we consider the issues. It is a matter which I have thought about and on which I have consulted. I have brought it forward this evening as Amendment No. 41.
However, there is one further matter I wish to allude to. We are talking about something very serious which worries people throughout the United Kingdom. There is one further development which the Government are considering. It relates to the possibility of the appointment of someone to monitor procedures at the holding centres. I stress that this is an idea at a very formative stage. It is possible to envisage a scheme which might have, let us say, a commissioner appointed with a remit to visit the holding centres with access to them at any time of his or her choosing. The primary task of the commissioner would be to ensure that the proper procedures relating to the treatment of terrorist suspects was being followed. Therefore, he would be concerned with such matters as the provisions of the code of practice which the Government are putting forward this evening. For example, there would be continuous supervision of the closed circuit television monitors and to generally ensure that the arrangements for the detention of suspects are satisfactory.
I emphasise that this is a scheme which we are contemplating. The reason we are doing so is because we take the point that there is considerable anxiety throughout the United Kingdom about these matters. Quite frankly, it is conceivable that thoughts along these lines might not only be of value in meeting the worries that have been expressed this evening, but they might be of value to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. So not only is justice done—as I am certain it is being done—but it is also seen to be done. As regards the Government, we need further time to decide whether a practical and workable scheme along these lines is possible. We have to have discussions, and we would wish to have them, with a number of organisations, including the police authority for Northern Ireland, as we seek to develop the idea.
I lay this matter before the Committee this evening as a possibility which I hope it will consider could be of value both in meeting concerns and for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have explained at great length the reasons why the Government are opposed to the introduction of video-recorded interviews of terrorist suspects. I hope the Committee will feel that the alternative way forward that I have mapped out may be another way.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am sure that the Committee will be most grateful to the Minister for the extremely positive way in which he has responded to the anxieties expressed at Second Reading and this evening. I hope that I heard him correctly; namely, that the contemplated code of practice that he is
1428
bringing forward as Amendment No. 41 will, without prior commitment, deal with all matters that might tend to create better practice in terms of the treatment and interviewing of suspects. The Minister was right to refer to monitoring. If a suspect is monitored and there is a written record of his interview, a great deal of the apprehensions expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and by the Minister, might be misplaced. I put it no higher than that.
If there is already a written interview and monitoring, as we know there is, then it is already not a hole-in-the-corner, one-to-one, secret dialogue in which secrets can be exchanged in a particularly confidential way. The procedure is already part of a formal process, as the treatment of suspects should be. We are simply trying to set the best rules that the procedures be carried out in a way which is defensible to the general public and fair to the suspect as well as allowing the police to do their job. If that is done, then I believe that we are getting somewhere. In that spirit, and in looking forward to what the Minister will say in addition when speaking to Amendment No. 41, I withdraw the amendment for the time being but without losing sight of it. I shall watch closely how the Government flesh out the proposal in Amendment No. 41 in future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 45 to 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Relevant offences]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 34, line 17, leave out ("and").
Page 34, line 20, at end insert ("and
(c) an offence falling within Part IV of that Schedule.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 50 to 55 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Confiscation Orders: Supplementary Provisions]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 60, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 14.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 29 to 35 inclusive.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 35 make a small but important change to the provisions on restraint and charging orders found in Schedule 4. Their effect is to provide that applications for such orders made before a person has been convicted are to be made by an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary of at least the rank of superintendent. Applications made after a person has been convicted are to be made by the prosecutor.
Restraint and charging orders are designed to ensure that assets may be frozen so that they are available to meet any confiscation order that may be made. To be effective they will normally have to be made at a very early stage—often before a person is charged by the police. In these circumstances, and having regard to the special circumstances which exist

1429
in Northern Ireland, we consider that it would be seen by some: as inappropriate to involve the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) in applications made before a person has been convicted. Involvement at that stage might be used by some to question his independence—none of us would want that result. Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 to 34 are consequential to that decision not to involve the DPP in pre-conviction applications.
It is important to note that these amendments in no way alter the vigorous standards which must be met before any such order is granted by the High Court or, exceptionally, by the Secretary of State. All they do is change the identity of the person applying for the orders, and that only where the application is made before conviction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 60, line 37, leave out ("only on an application by") and insert ("—

(i) where it is applied for before the defendant is convicted of the offence, only on the application of an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of superintendent; and

(ii) otherwise, only on the application of").

Lord Prys-Davies: We support this series of amendments. However, I wonder whether there might be a problem with Amendment No. 29. As I understand it, only the police can apply for a restraint order before conviction. But what is the earliest time when the police can apply for such an order? Further, can they apply for a restraint order before a charge has been preferred? Moreover, what evidence will the police have to give to the court that a charge is to be preferred?
I presume from what the Minister said that there will be no discussions between the police and the DPP. But, as I understand it, there could be a problem. It will be the DPP who decides whether a charge is to be preferred. However, what is the position where the police have asked for a restraint order but a charge is not preferred?
Lord Belstead: As I said when moving Amendment No. 28, in order to be effective the restraint and charging orders (which are designed to ensure that assets may be frozen so that they are available to meet any confiscation order that may be made) must be applied for—and, it is to be hoped, granted—at a very early stage. The noble Lord asked whether the application could be made before a person is charged. The answer is yes. Indeed, often before a person is charged by the police an application will be made, and in those circumstances, and having regard to the special circumstances which exist in Northern Ireland, we considered that it would be inappropriate for the DPP in Northern Ireland to be involved in applications before a person has been convicted, much less charged. Involvement at that stage might be used by some to question the DPP's independence.
As regards the question raised by the noble Lord of whether there would be discussions between the police and the DPP, the answer remains the same as that which I gave earlier this afternoon. In other words, there will not be discussions of that kind. The DPP
1430
does not decide whether the RUC shall charge a person. Restraint orders can be made before a charge is laid, but a person who is affected can apply for a variation.
I believe that that last point covers the final question raised by the noble Lord. He asked what would happen if an application is made, the person concerned discharged and the charge not proceeded with. As I understand it, such a person can apply for a variation of the restraint order. Under the circumstances put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I believe that that is exactly what the person concerned would do.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the Minister for the very full answers he has given to the questions I raised. However, we shall have to consider whether there are any hidden problems in this area. If that proves to be the case, we shall return to the matter at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 35:
Page 61, line 17, leave out ("prosecution") and insert ("person by whom an application for a restraint order is made").
Page 61, line 19, leave out ("a restraint order or an application for such") and insert ("the order or the application for").
Page 61, line 21, leave out ("prosecution") and insert ("person by whom an application for a restraint order is made").
Page 61, line 22, leave out ("a restraint order or an application for such") and insert ("the order or the application for").
Page 61, line 26, leave out ("the application of the prosecution") and insert ("an application").
Page 61, line 44, leave out ("only on an application by") and insert ("—

(i) where it is applied for before the defendant is convicted of the offence, only on the application of an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of superintendent; and

(ii) otherwise, only on the application of").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 63, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert:
("Contravention of restraint order
8A —(1) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him), contravenes a restraint order is guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or a fine or both;

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall be taken to prejudice any power of the High Court to deal with the contravention of a restraint order as a contempt of court.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 2. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Additional investigation powers]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 41, line 17, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 26 and insert ("a person who has been authorised under

1431
subsection (1) above to exercise the powers there mentioned considers that any material may be relevant to the investigation in relation to which the authority was given, Schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (terrorist investigations) shall have effect in relation to the material as if—

(a) the references to a constable in paragraphs 2(1), 3(1) and (2) (b), 5(1) and (3), 6(1), 12(2) (b), 14(3) and 15(1);

(b) the first of the references to a constable in paragraph 3(6); and

(c) the references to a procurator fiscal in paragraphs 12(1) and (6), 13(2), 14(1) and 15(1),

included references to that person; and where (by virtue of this subsection) such a person has made an application for an order under paragraph 3 of that Schedule, the reference in paragraph 4(2) (b) to the constable on whose application the order was made or any constable serving in the same police station shall be construed as referring to that person.").
The noble Lord said: This small technical amendment is necessary to enhance the powers of authorised investigators appointed under Clause 57 of the Bill. Members of the Committee will be aware that these financial investigation provisions were added to the Bill in the other place, and I believe that it is fair to say they have received support both there and in this place.
What is now proposed is that where material has been made available to the police as a result of the various powers in Schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, an authorised investigator as well as a constable (or in Scotland a procurator fiscal) should be able to apply for any further order that may be required. Authorised investigators will only be appointed in cases which are of a complex nature. Such cases will often require detailed examination of financial records. It will be from such examinations that the need for orders under Schedule 7 to the Act will arise.
The powers under Schedule 7 are rightly exercised with great care both by the courts and by the Secretary of State. Detailed questions are often asked of the person making the application. It is, I think, clear that where the need for the warrant or order arises out of work carried out by an authorised investigator, he will be the person best able fully to answer such questions. It is right, therefore, that he should be the person to make the application. This proposal in no way alters the rightly strict conditions that must be fulfilled before any order may be granted under Schedule 7. They simply enable an authorised investigator to make application for such orders.
It is also proposed that an authorised investigator should be allowed access to any material which is the subject of an access order. Without it the authorised investigator would have to seek a production order for the material. Adopting that course of action would not only impede the investigation but would also be much more inconvenient to the person holding the material, who would have to hand it over rather than simply allow access to it.
The amendment is a sensible provision. In effect, it will mean that authorised investigators can make applications for such orders themselves rather than having to rely on others, probably unfamiliar with the investigation, to do so on their behalf. The strict
1432
safeguards in Schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are not altered. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
9 p.m.
Schedule 5 [Authorised Investigators]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 74, line 41, at end insert:
("Code of practice
7 —(1) The Secretary of State shall make a code of practice in connection with the exercise by authorised investigators of the powers conferred by this Schedule.
(2)When the Secretary of State proposes to issue the code of practice under this paragraph he shall prepare and publish a draft of the code, shall consider any representations made to him about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly.
(3)The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the code of practice prepared by him under this paragraph; and when he has laid the draft of the code before both Houses he may bring the code into operation by an order made by him.
(4)An order bringing the code of practice into operation may contain such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the code.
(5)The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of the code of practice issued by him under this paragraph and issue the code as revised; and the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such a revised code as they apply to the first issue of the code.
(6)A failure on the part of an authorised investigator to comply with any provision of a code of practice issued under this paragraph shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings.
(7)In all criminal and civil proceedings such a code shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.
(8)In this paragraph "criminal proceedings" includes proceedings before a court-martial constituted under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or a disciplinary court constituted under section 50 of the said Act of 1957 and proceedings before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.
S.I. 1989/1341 (N.I. 12)
(9)Nothing in paragraph (8) of Article 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 or subsection (9) of section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall require authorised investigators to have regard in exercising the powers conferred by this Schedule to any provision of a code under that Order or that Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 46. These amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to make a code of practice in connection with the exercise by authorised investigators of the powers conferred by Schedule 5 to the Bill.
The powers conferred by Schedule 5 are far reaching and we consider it right that the way in which they are exercised should be regulated by a code. That will act as a safeguard both for those who are subject to the use of the powers and also to the authorised investigators who are to exercise the powers. The detailed provisions in the code are set out in Amendment No. 38 and follow closely the provisions

1433
of the code for police powers in Clause 60 of the Bill. It is provided, for example, that the code shall be published in draft, that the Secretary of State shall consider any representations he receives and that the code shall be laid in draft before both Houses before any order is made. The code will be admissible in evidence in both civil and criminal proceedings.
Amendment No. 46 provides that an order bringing such a code into operation shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope the Committee may feel that this is a significant safeguard. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I should like to support my noble friend on this amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, would agree that from the technical point of view it is a well-conceived form of code of practice that is to be introduced here. The original code of practice applicable to our law came in as long ago as 1930, when the Road Traffic Act of that year made it possible for there to be a Highway Code.Everyone understood that the Highway Code was guidance to motorists and that a breach of the Highway Code did not in itself constitute an offence. However, when an offence under the substantive law was committed it was permissible to refer to the Highway Code and a factor to be taken into account in considering liability was whether the Highway Code had been observed.
That excellent pattern has in fairly recent years sometimes been varied with somewhat uncertain legal effect. In this respect, if I may say so, my noble friend has got it right. He has followed the well-established formula. It is to be found in sub-paragraphs (6) and (7). I need not read them out; they are there for all to see. This is the best way to do it. I am very glad that the Government have not fallen into the trap of trying to make the code of practice an indirect form of secondary legislation. I support the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: From these Benches and for the reasons which have been canvassed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, we are pleased to welcome the amendment. This is a considerable improvement and we welcome it.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my noble friend Lord Renton. The House has trained an eagle eye on codes of practice over the past year. I am glad that in this case the code passes muster so far as concerns my noble friend Lord Renton.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 [Supplementary regulations for preserving the peace, etc.]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 41 line 42, after ("Act") insert ("as may be necessary for the effective implementation of those provisions").
The noble Lord said: Clause 58(1) states that the Secretary of State may make additional regulations for promoting the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order. Our amendment would limit
1434
the scope of those regulations to such matters as may be necessary for the implementation of the provisions which are already contained in the Bill.
The regulation-making power contained in subsection (1) is extremely wide ranging. Subsection (2) does not add anything to our understanding of what the Secretary of State may do with this power. For the subsection to provide that the regulations may make orders for such purposes as may be specified in the regulations tells us nothing. Our concern about this clause is deepened when we read in subsection (3) that the regulations may create new criminal offences punishable by a fine or up to six months' imprisonment. The clause extends considerably the scope of the emergency Bill.
Our anxieties are further deepened when we read in Clause 66(4) that the regulations made under the clause will not be subject to parliamentary approval. As I understand it, we shall not even have the opportunity of hearing the Minister explaining the rules or have an opportunity to criticise them. They will not even be subject to the negative procedure. That is a complete derogation of power from Parliament to the Secretary of State. The least we can do is to seek to confine the scope of the regulations to such matters:
"as may be necessary for the effective implementation of"
the Bill's provisions. I concede that that may be an inadequate response. I hope that the Minister will have regard to our anxieties. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: Will the Minister tell us what is meant by the phrase:
"for promoting the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order"?
If Clause 34 had been deleted, would Clause 58 give the Secretary of State the power to make provisions and regulations concerning detention?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: We should be astounded at the moderation of the amendment because the clause, as it stands, gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque to introduce in the future whatever regulations and orders he decides without, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said any parliamentary point of reference. The provision was a constitutional monster when it was in the original 1978 Act, as I acknowledge it was, but it has been significantly worsened by the introduction of subsection (2) which appears to authorise the making of regulations for whatever purpose the Secretary of State decides to include in the regulation being made.
I urge the Minister to consider whether that ballooning power should be in some way tethered to the purposes of the Act.
Lord Belstead: Clause 58 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for promoting the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has asked me what that means. I shall try to return to that point. As my noble friend Lord Colville said, the regulation-making power allows the Secretary of State to respond rapidly to public order developments, and, as such, is an essential feature of the emergency provisions legislation. I must notch up that point first, because

1435
the Committee has made a certain amount of criticism. My noble friend was clear that the regulation-making powers are an essential feature of the emergency provisions legislation.
At present, the regulations made under the existing power, including those establishing vehicle control zones in Northern Ireland, have a security purpose that is well understood and is generally uncontroversial. My noble friend Lord Colville records in paragraph 16.3 of his report that he received no representations opposed to the view that the regulation-making power should remain in its general form. He comments on
"the utility of possessing a power which can be rapidly deployed in the public order sphere"
and goes on to say:
"Since any offence against the Regulations is only summary no great impact on liberties, which are reasonably exercised, is involved. I recommend the continuation of this arrangement."
Any regulations made under Clause 58 will continue to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, say that there was no affirmative or negative resolution power. In addition, any regulations made under this power are susceptible to judicial review. Those are important safeguards on the operation of the provision.
The amendment would limit the ability of the Secretary of State to respond rapidly to developments in the public order sphere. It would also, we believe, serve to create uncertainty about the precise scope of the power. Although I accept that the amendment is intended as a safeguard to prevent the misuse of the power, the Government believe that there are already sufficient safeguards against its misuse, and that view is endorsed by my noble friend Lord Colville.
I admit that I have not given a direct answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I do not intend to give him a direct answer this evening because it is for the Secretary of State of the day to decide what he would use the power for. I remind the Committee that the power is subject both to judicial review and also to affirmative resolution. I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I realise that I am not meant to participate in these matters but there is a point that my noble friend may like to consider before he sits down. The power we are discussing was originally mentioned in the 1978 Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has reminded us. It appeared in an Act that was very much smaller than the measure we are discussing. It should perfectly properly appear in Part VIII as part of the miscellaneous provisions. Clause 58(1) refers to,
["the foregoing provisions of this Act".]
Originally it only referred to what is now contained in Parts I, II, III and IV. It did not apply to Part V because that was not included in the 1978 Act. It did not apply to Part VI because that came about in 1989 and it did not apply to Part VII because that was introduced on Report in another place. I wonder
1436
whether one of the solutions to this matter might be to confine the regulation making powers under Clause 58 to the parts of this Bill to which it originally applied.
Lord Hylton: I hope that I may probe a little further on this matter. Going back some months and years, changes were made to the right of suspects to remain silent. Changes were also made as regards access to the media by proscribed organisations and persons speaking on their behalf. Were those kind of changes made under the predecessor of this legislation? If not, under what measure were those changes introduced?
Lord Belstead: The regulations cannot go outside the scope of this Bill. The Long Title of the Bill makes it clear what matters are covered. I wish to consider what my noble friend Lord Colville has said. I am grateful to him for his one intervention of the evening.
Lord Prys-Davies: I heard the Minister say that the regulations made under Clause 58 will be subject to affirmative resolution. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the wording of Clause 66 which deals with orders and regulations. Clause 66 (1) provides that,
"any power to make orders or regulations … shall be exercisable by statutory instrument".
Clause 66 (4) states:
"Subsection (1) above does not apply to any order under section 25, Schedule 3 or paragraph 6(1) (d) of Schedule 5 or any order under regulations made by virtue of section 58".
Unless I am misreading that clause, it appears to me that an order made under Clause 58 will not be subject to affirmative resolution.
Lord Belstead: I am advised that Clause 66(2) provides the answer to the point which the noble Lord has raised. Clause 66(2) (a) states:
"a draft of the order or regulations has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for referring me to subsection (2) of Clause 66. I shall consider that subsection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person to be known as the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland (in this Act referred to as "the Independent Assessor").
(2)A person shall not be eligible for appointment as the Independent Assessor if he is, or at any time during the period of twenty years ending with the date of the appointment has been, a serving member of Her Majesty's forces.
(3)Schedule (Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Independent Assessor.
(4)The Independent Assessor—

(a) shall keep under review the procedures adopted by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland ("the GOC") for receiving, investigating and responding to relevant complaints;

(b) shall receive and investigate any representations concerning those procedures;

1437

(c) may investigate the operation of those procedures in relation to any particular complaint or group of complaints;

(d) may require the GOC to review any particular case or group of cases in which the Independent Assessor considers any of those procedures to have operated inadequately; and

(e) may make to the GOC recommendations concerning any inadequacies in those procedures, including inadequacies in the way in which they operate in rotation to any particular complaint, group of complaints or description of complaints.

(5) In this section "relevant complaint" means a complaint relating to the behaviour of any member of Her Majesty's forces under the command of the GOC, other than—

(a)any complaint which has been referred by the GOC to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and not remitted by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the GOC to be & all with by him; and

(b)any complaint relating to a matter in respect of which a claim for compensation has been made under section 62 below or which is the subject of proceedings involving a claim for compensation which have been instituted in any court.

(6) The GOC shall—

(a)furnish such information;

(b)disclose such documents; and

(c)provide such assistance,

as the Independent Assessor may reasonably require for the purpose of the performance of his functions.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 40 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 48. During Second Reading on 19th April, I announced that the Government had decided to accept the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Colville that we should consider the appointment of some independent outside person to carry out on a continuing basis an audit of the way in which armed forces' complaints procedures are operating. The new clause and its associates schedule give effect to our decision.
The new clause would require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to appoint an independent assessor of military complaints procedures n Northern Ireland. It also outlines the independent assessor's functions in some detail. I shall not explain the details at this hour of the evening except to underline the fact that the assessor would be required to keep under review the procedures adopted by the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland for receiving, investigating and responding to non-criminal complaints relating to the behaviour of members of the armed forces under his command. It is with procedures that the assessor's functions are concerned.
The independent assessor has not been given any role in relation to complaints of criminal misconduct by the armed forces. There is a good reason for that. Allegations of criminal misconduct by the armed forces are and will remain subject to independent investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The associated schedule deals with a number of "housekeeping" matters such as the independent assessor's tenure of office, his remuneration, staff and reports. The independent assessor will be required to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State—meaning the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State for Defence, "the Secretary of State" being a term of art—on the performance of the independent assessor's functions.
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the armed forces. As my noble friend Lord Colville reports, in 1989 the army received 282 formal non-criminal complaints; the figure for 1990 was 196. The procedures for handling those complaints constitute the area of activity of the proposed independent assessor. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was impressed by those complaints figures, especially when they are set against normal levels of armed forces' activity in the Province. For example, to quote again my noble friend Lord Colville, in 1989 1.2 million vehicles were stopped and checked by the armed forces at vehicle checkpoints in Northern Ireland. In August 1989 alone the West Belfast Battalion performed 2,444 patrols. I stress that those are normal levels of activity in a very difficult situation. Set against them the figures for complaints that I have given are very modest and bear testimony to the professionalism with which the armed forces go about their duties. I know that the Committee will join me in paying an unreserved tribute to the security forces in Northern Ireland, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the regular Army, and the Ulster Defence Regiment, for the difficult and dangerous work they do on behalf of the whole community.
Nevertheless, the Government are confident that this new measure to establish the office of independent assessor of armed forces complaints procedures, coming in addition to other improvements in complaints systems introduced in recent years, will be in the public interest. However, we believe that it will be valuable not only to the community but also to the armed forces themselves in helping to retain the confidence and support of all men and women of good will from both traditions in Northern Ireland. I trust that these two amendments will receive the support of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: We on these Benches join the Minister in paying tribute to the armed forces in Northern Ireland. They discharge their duties often in difficult and dangerous conditions.
The amendment is a step forward and is to be welcomed. It is a great improvement on what we now have. However, we feel that the amendment does not go far enough.
The role of the independent assessor will be that of adviser to the GOC. His duties are confined to the five matters set out in subsection (4). He will keep the complaints procedure under review, investigate the operation of the procedure, receive and investigate representations relating to the procedure and make recommendations relating to the procedure to the GOC. However, the clause does not introduce an independent element into the consideration of a complaint. We have been pressing for that independent element to be involved in the consideration of the complaint. That is still missing.
There is another missing element. The assessor may make recommendations to the GOC but there is no specific duty on the GOC to pay due regard to his recommendations. No doubt the Minister will say that he will pay serious regard to the views of the assessor, but one would have thought that that duty should be on the face of the Bill. I also wonder whether there

1439
should be a reference in the clause to the need to give publicity to the procedures so that people will know what the complaints procedure is and how they can make a complaint.
In addition, perhaps I may ask whether the assessor's tenure should be longer than three years. Is three years not too short a period? Although we welcome the amendment so far as it goes, it should be strengthened. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he will not close his mind to the need to strengthen it, possibly along the lines that I have suggested.
Lord Hylton: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, both in his preliminary remarks and in what he said about this being a small step forward. I agree with him about the lack of an independent element in the consideration of a complaint.
Perhaps I may make three points about the manner in which the procedures should work. First, they should be as rapid as possible. That is important when one bears in mind the constant turnover of Army personnel and short-term and long-term battalions. It may be that, by the time the complaint comes to be considered, the soldier has already gone to Germany or somewhere on the other side of the world. Secondly, conciliation is bound to be important, whenever possible bringing together the complainant and the person responsible for answering the complaint. Thirdly, apologies, where the Army or the UDR know that they have slightly overstepped the mark, can probably do more than anything else to put the relationship right or at least to improve it.
Lord Belstead: Both the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hylton, made a common point when they expressed criticism of the fact that the independent assessor has no role in the investigation of non-criminal complaints. I was surprised to hear that criticism because the Government have done exactly as my noble friend Lord Colville recommended. I refer noble Lords to paragraph 5.25 of my noble friend's report, where he refers to the appointment of independent outside persons, under a variety of titles,
"who carry out an audit of the way in which complaints procedures are operating…Such persons do not perform a reappraisal of any individual complaint investigation on its merits, but undertake a survey of the effectiveness of the machinery. They have generous access to files, can accept complaints about the procedure from anyone aggrieved, exercise a general oversight and usually publish an annual report".
That is exactly what the Government have provided in the new clause to establish the office of Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Codes of practice: police powers]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 42, line 19, leave out from ("State") to ("the") in line 26 and insert ("shall make codes of practice in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and may make codes of practice in connection with—

(a) the exercise by police officers of any power conferred by Part II of this Act or by that Act; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: I explained the background to this amendment in some detail when we debated the new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, to require the Secretary of State to make a code of practice to provide for video recording of interviews with terrorist suspects. As I explained then, we are wholly committed to ensuring that the highest standards apply in the conduct of police interviews with terrorist suspects.
To that end I said that we had decided to make a code of practice under the powers in Clause 60, dealing with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of terrorist suspects. That is the purpose of the amendment. It would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to make such a code. The amendment would also leave intact the enabling power in relation to the other matters currently specified in Clause 61 as possibilities for codes of practice. I hope that the Committee will feel that a code of that kind will enhance confidence in police procedures and provide further protection for the rights of suspects in police custody. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will allow me to intervene for one moment. This is a new point and I do not believe that even the Addison Rules (or whatever it is that binds me) will prevent my making what I hope is a constructive suggestion upon which the noble Lord opposite may wish to comment. My point arises from what my noble friend said about the relevance of the code of practice to the Government's present view that they do not want recording of the video monitor signal in detention centres in Northern Ireland.
The trouble about complaints which do not get cleared up is that by the time they come to be investigated they are stale, and the last thing one is going to get at that stage is any medical evidence. If the code of practice that my noble friend is now suggesting goes into the question of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, he may wish to look at my last report on the operation of that legislation. I made a particular point of looking at the reviews of detention carried out by senior uniformed officers, which occur in Northern Ireland as they do everywhere else. In that report I gave the example of a review carried out by a police force in Great Britain, at the end of which I should have thought that it would have been quite impossible for the detainee to make a complaint that he had been beaten up or otherwise mishandled by the police in the course of his custody.
At the moment the problem is that the review machinery tends somewhat to limit the number of questions that the review officer asks of the detainee. It goes into the question of whether the latter should have access to the outside world and to a solicitor but does not ask specifically in terms whether he has any complaints to make since the previous review took place. A review occurs after the first nine hours and then at 12-hour intervals. If at that stage he has any complaint, it will be fresh and it will be possible to discover what interrogations, if any, have taken place

1441
and who has been involved in them. There will be an opportunity for the doctor to see him if he does make a complaint, and the whole thing can be dealt with immediately. Indeed, those watching the television monitors would be able to be asked whether they recalled anything at a time when events were fresh in their memories.
Therefore, it seems to me that my noble friend was quite right when he said there could be a substantial contribution to the resolution of this rather long-standing problem if the code of practice built upon the reviews already in place under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act by eliciting a little more information from the detainee about whether or not he has anything to complain about over the past 12-hour period. It would also cover anything that happened outside the interrogation room: for instance, in the corridors or in the cell.
Lord Belstead: I was somewhat at a loss because my noble friend appeared to be addressing the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, although I think that the points he raised were put to the Government. I can confirm that the proposed code of practice will deal with the detention and treatment of persons arrested and detained under Section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. I can assure my noble friend that we will take on board the points made in his annual report on the operation of that Act. Those are matters ideally to be dealt with in the proposed code. The noble Lord having suddenly leapt into action behind me, perhaps he will forgive me if I say I do not think I can go any farther this evening.
Lord Prys-Davies: I listened with great interest to the Minister's response to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I very much hope that when we see the code of practice it will incorporate the valuable and constructive points made by the noble Viscount. We certainly support the amendment.
I want to ask the Minister one question. The duty under the amendment is mandatory. Why is the duty to make a code of practice under Clause 60(1) (a) (b) (c) discretionary? Is there an anomaly there?
Lord Belstead: We are here making it mandatory that there shall be a code of practice in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. But, as I sought to go out of my way to say, we are leaving intact the rest of the enabling powers in Clause 60 as possibilities for codes of practice.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wonder whether the Minister can explain why the codes of practice which may be made under paragraphs (a) (b) (c) are discretionary? Why should not that be mandatory as well?
Lord Belstead: The effect of the amendment that I have just moved is to do exactly what the noble Lord wishes to be done. We are substituting "shall" for "may". Taat means that the code of practice of which we are speaking will now be mandatory upon my right honourable friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Codes of practice: lethal force
—(1) The Secretary of State shall make a code of practice in connection with the use of lethal force by police officers and members of Her Majesty's forces in dealing with suspected terrorists.
(2)Subsections (2) to (5) of section 60 above shall apply to a code under this section as they apply to a code under that section.
(3)A failure on the part of a police officer or a member of Her Majesty's forces to comply with any provision of such a code shall constitute an offence punishable on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.").
The noble Lord said: It has long been clear that the use of lethal force by members of the security forces in dealing with a person suspected of involvement in terrorist activity is one of the most important and emotive aspects of the operation of the emergency powers in Northern Ireland. Yet at no time is it more important for the security forces to be seen to be accountable for their actions than when in situations which involve the use of lethal force.
The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights which is the Government's standing advisory commission in Northern Ireland has identified in particular two areas of difficulty. First, there is no specific statutory provision relating to the use of lethal force and the courts have repeatedly refused to give any general guidance as to the meaning of the requirement that the degree of force to be used to prevent a crime or effect an arrest must be reasonable in the circumstances. In Northern Ireland some more detailed guidance is given to soldiers and the police in the so-called yellow card which is issued to them. But the yellow card has no legal significance and in fact is treated as confidential.
The standing advisory commission has therefore recommended that there should be a statutory code of guidance setting out the circumstances in which the use of lethal force is justified. The commission is strengthened in that view by the terms of recent draft principles on the use of force by law enforcement officials, which has been considered by the eighth United Nations congress on the prevention of crime. Indeed, the Minister will know that the standing advisory commission itself produced a draft code.
The second difficulty is that there is no satisfactory way of dealing with cases in which the current rules, as understood through the yellow card, may have been broken. That leads to a great deal of dissatisfaction. It may well be that the general law needs to be reformed. That is referred to in Amendment No. 44.
However, the position could be improved if the Bill were to provide a more satisfactory way of dealing with cases in which the use of lethal force by the security forces in Northern Ireland has been controversial. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has even urged that the Bill should include provision for a statutory code of conduct, a breach of its terms being a specific offence punishable

1443
by a modest maximum term of imprisonment. I hope that I have said enough to explain this important amendment which stems from the standing advisory commission. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The law relating to the use of force is set out in Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1967. It states that:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large".
That is the law both in Northern Ireland and England and Wales; it applies equally to those charged with upholding the law and ordinary members of the public.
The first effect of a statutory code of practice on the use of lethal force in dealing with suspected terrorists would be to undermine that position of parity. It would place policemen and soldiers in a different legal position when confronted by a suspected terrorist and when confronted by an armed bank robber. An obvious question which arises is the effect of such a code where a policeman or soldier mistakenly believes that he is dealing with a suspected terrorist but in fact is dealing with a bank robber, or vice versa.
Similarly, one must have concerns about the more general effects of such a code. The new clause proposes, as with the recommendation of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, that breach of any provision of such a code should constitute a criminal offence, punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment. One must question whether it would be right so to legislate for situations in which, by their very nature, lives may be at stake. One must also question whether the effect of such a code would in fact inhibit the use of firearms in circumstances where it would be legitimate and necessary to use firearms for self-protection or the protection of others.
I recognise the strength of feeling on this general issue. The Government also understand the reasons why SACHR recommended that such a code should be introduced in terms of community confidence. However, for the reasons that I have given, we believe that it is a matter which has implications for the general criminal law as a whole and should not therefore be considered simply in the context of emergency legislation.
In a paper sent to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights it said that this may be a subject,
"best dealt with in a separate statute of more general application".
I assure the Committee that we shall continue to consider the concept of a code of practice alongside the other propositions that have been made relating to the general issue of the use of force. However, I ask the Committee not to accept the new clause within the context of this Bill.
Lord Hylton: The Minister knows that I have been concerned about these matters for a good many years.
1444
I have discussed them with him personally. I am sorry to say that I do not believe that we made tremendous headway on that occasion.
I believe that we all accept that we wish to see the minimum necessary force used by the security services. That, alas, has not always been possible in the past. I have with me a list of 49 deaths between 1982 and April 1990 in which it is clear, I am afraid, that excessive force was used on a number of occasions.
The Minister has rightly pointed out that there is an interaction between terrorist crimes and ordinary crimes sometimes involving the use of replica weapons. Although the Minister did not mention vehicles, we understand that they are involved in joy-riding offences in which a number of young people have been shot and killed in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the assurance that the matter will be looked at in the context of the entire legislation. I hope that the Minister considers that the code of practice already drafted and submitted by the standing advisory commission has been a helpful step, and that it will be a catalyst to action.
I agree with the Minister's comments about the maximum term of imprisonment provided in subsection (3) of the amendment. That may be insufficient in certain circumstances. I wish to underline the fact that since at least 1982 there has been no judicial inquiry into a disputed killing which would have had the power to subpoena witnesses and to investigate the matter thoroughly. That is a further reinforcement of the need to take action.
Amendment No. 44 provides a defence in particular for a member of the security services who is charged with killing or using excessive force. I have raised the issues previously in this Chamber, as has the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, a former Northern Ireland Minister. There is Australian experience of legislation involving charges less than murder where a person has been killed, usually by a policeman or by military personnel. Professor Tom Hadden of Queen's University has carried out a great deal of work on the subject. I hope that Amendment No. 44 will find more favour with the Government than the amendment which we are now considering.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: I am not convinced that a code of practice would prevent people in such circumstances being killed. One or two incidents have occurred totally by mistake; for instance, that at Aughnacloy in which someone in a sangar loosed off some rounds and shot a man. However, the predominant number of such cases have been investigated. A charge of murder would have been brought had it been thought that the soldier or the policeman acted in a way in which he should not have acted in any circumstances.
The problem is that when people have been shot in such circumstances the policeman or the soldier had justifiable reason for believing at the time that his life or the lives of other people were at risk. The terms of a code of practice must state, "Should you believe that your life, or someone else's life is at risk, you may open fire". However, where a joy-rider, for instance, is

1445
careering down a street in the presence of soldiers or policemen it is difficult to see what else those officers can do. Most certainly they cannot read a code of practice asking whether that looks like a joy-rider.
The charge of murder exists at present, and it has been used. There has been a certain amount of disquiet because people have not been convicted because it was thought that at the time the man had been justified in opening fire even if it was discovered subsequently that he had wrongly assessed or misunderstood something happening near him which turned out to be comparatively harmless.
Perhaps I may give an example. A car draws into a road check point and as it is leaving it backfires. A soldier nearby may believe that he has been shot and may stagger backwards. Another man may see that, believe that the passenger in the car has opened fire and shoot him. In those circumstances I do not believe that a code of practice would make any difference. It is inconceivable that it would prevent the man from being killed.
We seem to be trying—and this is rather borne out by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as regard the charge of manslaughter in Australia—to find a law by which we can convict the very people whom we have put in place to stop terrorism in Northern Ireland. We are trying to treat them under a different law. Terrorists will not be charged with manslaughter but with murder. Some of our soldiers—many from England—and policemen have been charged with murder. That has caused them considerable stress and strain and has had a severe effect on their families. I do not believe that the right way forward is by use of a code of practice which will tie them to a far greater extent than they are already.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his support on this amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for indicating that the Government are at least interested in a code of practice on the use of legal force. The Minister makes the point that if there is to be a development along those lines, it must be part of the general development or reform of the law. I accept that. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Amendments to Coroners Rules
The Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1963 as amended by the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) (Amendment) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1980 are amended as follows—

(a) In Rule 9 for subsection (2) there is substituted— "Where a person is suspected of causing the death, or has been charged or is likely to be charged with an offence relating to the death, he shall be compelled to give evidence at the inquest if the coroner directs that such evidence should be given."

(b) In Rule 9, subsection (3) is omitted.

(c) In Rule 12, the words "or for such longer period as he may think fit" in subsection (1) is omitted.

(d) In Rule 12, subsection (2) is omitted.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to coroners courts. So that there is no misunderstanding
1446
about its intention, perhaps I may say immediately that paragraphs (a) and (b) have crept into the amendment by mistake. They should not be there. Therefore, I speak only to paragraphs (c) and (d).
The law on inquests is complex and has been the subject of at least two official inquiries in Britain over the past 50 years. Perhaps it is not surprising that an error crept into my amendment. The effect of subsections (c) and (d) would be to require an inquest into a disputed killing by the armed forces or the police to be opened as soon as practical after the death, with the exception of a single 28-day delay which would be permissible on the application of the police on the ground that someone was likely to be charged. If someone was to be charged, Rule 13 of the coroners' rules would come into operation and the opening of the inquest would be delayed until criminal proceedings were complete.
This is clearly a probing amendment on the general issue of long delays in holding inquests into the circumstances of killings in disputed circumstances in Northern Ireland. All too often it is the case in Northern Ireland that several years elapse before an inquest is held into the killing of a terrorist suspect. That long delay fuels the suspicion that the inquest is not being held because the authorities want to keep the lid on the truth.
It will be recalled that the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 prohibited the holding of inquests in specific classes of case. That was the position between 1922 and 1973. In 1988 Amnesty International published statistics about the delay in holding inquests in Northern Ireland between 1982 and 1988. During that period, according to Amnesty International, there were 49 killings by the security forces. By 1988 inquests had only been held into 24 of the deaths, and criminal proceedings taken in respect of five. That left 20 of the killings untouched by an inquiry. I have been unable to trace statistics for the period since 1988. But I have no reason to believe that the figures for the period 1982 to 1988 were exceptional and that I am in any way misleading the Committee.
There is little doubt that long delays are the order of the day in holding inquests into disputed killings. If and when the inquests are held after several years of delay, immense difficulties arise, sometimes in tracing witnesses or tracing documentary testimony. People cannot recall in detail what they saw and heard. There is therefore a risk that the long delay compromises the standards of justice. The issue broadens out to become one of confidence in the administration of justice. Where that happens, that goes to the heart of the problem.
The law on inquests is complex. It is difficult without expert knowledge—which we do not possess—to suggest an amendment that would cure the problems. We believe that it is the right time to get the right answers. I received a helpful letter from Professor Tom Hadden, who is a professor of law at Queen's University Belfast. He suggests that the subject needs to be carefully studied in order to achieve three results. First, inquests into all fatal shootings by members of the security forces should be

1447
speeded up so that rumours about the essential facts will be replaced by the best available evidence. Secondly, adequate powers and procedures should be available to the coroner's court in Northern Ireland to ensure that the best available evidence is presented to and tested at the inquest. Thirdly, the rules of procedure and practice should be brought into line with those in Britain.
I summarised the letter sent to me by Professor Hadden. I shall be grateful if the Minister will indicate that he is in general sympathy with the aims that the professor believes to be desirable. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, whether I heard him correctly, that anything to do with compellability of witnesses should have been omitted from the face of the Marshalled List.
Lord Prys-Davies: Yes.
Lord Belstead: The new clause seeks only to amend the current rules to the effect that where criminal charges may be brought against the person who caused the death of the deceased, an inquest can only be adjourned for a maximum of 28 days. As the noble Lord knows better than I, it is a general principle both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland that any inquest must be delayed until after the conclusion of any criminal proceedings brought in connection with the death. The amendment would not be consistent with that practice. It seeks to remove the coroner's discretion to adjourn for longer than 28 days. I should have thought it better for an inquest not to begin until police investigations have been carried out rather than have to adjourn the inquest once charges have been brought or, worse still, have a further inquest.
We are opposed to the amendment because it violates the principle that an inquest should not proceed until the question of criminal proceedings has been determined. There is a very good reason for that principle. Proceedings at a coroner's inquest would be likely to prejudice any subsequent criminal proceedings. The amendment also ignores Rule 11 which provides a general discretion for coroners in Northern Ireland to adjourn inquests. The proposed amendment to Rule 12 would not fetter that general discretion to adjourn in Rule 11. However, there is a more fundamental problem with the amendment. It appears to be based on the misconception that when inquests in Northern Ireland are delayed for considerable periods, they have been adjourned under Rule 12. That is not the case. In Northern Ireland the practice has developed of not commencing an inquest at all in circumstances where the coroner knows that a criminal investigation is proceeding. That practice is different from that in England and Wales where the coroner must start and then adjourn.
While I appreciate that the reason for the noble Lord's amendment is to reduce the delays in holding some inquests—he delivered himself of some trenchant remarks in that respect—we should not
1448
forget that unfortunately the unprecedented volume of violent crime in Northern Ireland and the resulting demands on the resources of the RUC and the DPP, inevitably lead to some delay. Nevertheless every effort is made to ensure that inquests are held as quickly as practicable. I shall look with care at what the noble Lord said about the views of Professor Hadden. Although this debate has been interesting it falls a little outside the scope of the Bill. We have dealt with more general legal matters and not so much with the emergency provisions. Nonetheless, I am glad that the noble Lord moved the amendment. Although the noble Lord may considerably disagree with what I have said in reply, I hope that it will have been as useful to him as indeed his speech was to me.
Lord Prys-Davies: I thank the noble Lord for his response. I readily accept that the amendment may be defective. I am sorry if I left the impression that I was not speaking in moderate terms about the amendment. It should not be overlooked that this is an area of extreme sensitivity in Northern Ireland. I did not expect the Government to accept the amendment. A great deal of homework has to be done. I will be encouraged if in due course the Government will give further consideration to this issue which I have sought, possibly inadequately, to identify. I shall not take the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Defence against murder
—(1) It shall be a defence for any person charged with murder that he killed in a situation in which it was reasonable for some force to be used in self-defence or in the prevention of crime but that he used excessive force, if at the time of the act he reasonably believed that the force he used was reasonable in the circumstances.
(2) If such a defence is accepted by the court, the defendant may be found guilty of manslaughter".).
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment but not with a great deal of optimism. Nevertheless, the matter has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It is generally true to say that the law in respect of the use of reasonable force is regarded as unsatisfactory in many quarters. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is quite right in saying that in Northern Ireland the law is to be found in Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. That provision merely states that the force applied to prevent a crime or to effect an arrest must be reasonable in the circumstances. That is the phrase which causes the difficulty.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has drawn attention to the difficulty in a memorandum to the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Murder and Life Imprisonment. He argued cogently in that memorandum that legislation was needed to develop the law in this area of great difficulty. I wish to read a few sentences from the memorandum. It appears at page 542 of Volume 2 of the report. The noble Viscount said:
"Put very shortly (probably too shortly) the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is this: if, for example, a soldier shoots and kills someone in circumstances where he

1449
says that he thought the other person was about to pull a gun on him but he was mistaken, he can only be convicted of murder (with a mandatory life sentence)"—
subject of course as to how the Government will respond to the amendment should it be carried—
"if his defence is not believed (which many think too harsh) or completely acquitted on the grounds of self-defence (which the victim's family and community tend to think outrageous). There has not developed in this jurisdiction, although it has in others such as Australia, a half-way position whereby an alternative verdict of manslaughter can be reached".
He added in the following paragraph:
"I have to say that reform along the Australian lines has the potential for broader discussion of this area of criminal law. If it led to the adoption of a lawful verdict between the extremes, the change would go some way to satisfying the community after such an incident, and would also be just to member; of the security forces".
I should point out that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights fully endorses the general approach adopted by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Indeed, it has pressed for the law to be reformed along the lines of this amendment. It would allow the alternative verdict of manslaughter to be brought in where the authorities had brought a charge of murder in a case where some force was justified and had led to a killing.
I suspect that the Minister will say again that this is a matter which concerns the law in general and not something which should be dealt with or incorporated in this 13ill. Nevertheless, I should be most interested to hear his comments. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I should like to add to the enthusiasm expressed, which appeared to be not as noticeable as usual, when the amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I was a member of the Select Committee about which he spoke. Members of that committee were not unanimous on everything, but we were unanimous on this: that there should be a new defence to murder, one which would not provide a complete defence but would reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter if the defence was made out.
Not only does the noble Lord have the backing of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment; he also has the backing of the Lord Chief Justice. I shall quote from paragraph 88 of the Select Committee's report:
"If murder is to be reserved for those homicides which are most deserving of stigma, this does not seem to be one of them. The Lord Chief Justice told the Committee that he had always thought it wrong that a person who goes too far in self-defence should be convicted of murder and that, if any difficulties of definition could be overcome, the law should be changed".
I rise not only to express my support for a fellow member of the Select Committee but also partially to give vent to the frustration which I have only recently experienced in finding that, when I considered making an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill currently before this Chamber, the Long Title was not long enough to accommodate what I had in mind. However, if it had been I should have tabled such an amendment. Moreover, I should have done so with the authority of the Lord Chief Justice, to whom I spoke anticipating no such difficulty. I discovered the difficulty when I came to check up on the matter.
I do not see why there is a problem. We have the defence of provocation which reduces murder to
1450
manslaughter; but in provocation the defendant has lost his self-control, which is not a very good beginning to any defence in respect of a crime, and he has ex hypothesi acted in a manner which a reasonable person, subject to that provocation, would not follow.
Here, in the instant suggestion, the accused has, bona fide, acted in self-defence. He was defending himself in a situation which justified defending himself. He honestly believed that he was entitled to do what he did. But—and this is the only but—he went beyond the degree of self-defence that he was entitled in the circumstances to use. It is a classic example of mitigating the offence of murder down to manslaughter instead of leaving a person in that situation so much worse off than the man who can establish the defence of provocation and thus land him with the stigma of murder and, subject to the amendment recently passed in this Chamber, hitherto the automatic life sentence.
I would support this amendment, I hope with a little more enthusiasm than perhaps it has been thought fit to do so today.
Viscount Brookeborough: I hesitate to rise in the face of such knowledgeable opinions as we have just heard. However, as I see it—and perhaps I am wrong—what we are saying is that, if a person on security duty in Northern Ireland had at the time what we have all been told and what has been agreed was a justifiable reason for protecting himself and in a split second decided to open fire, a court will find him guilty of something regardless. I find it horrifying and amazing to think that we are contemplating saying to 18 or 19 year-olds in Northern Ireland, "You will do your duty. We know that on certain occasions—and we have trained you for it—you will come across situations where you will have a split second to decide whether your friend was shot or whether it was something backfiring. If it was a shot and he is dead and you do not fire, the terrorist may get away. But if you open fire, we don't find a weapon and he was not shot, even though we believe you did it for the right reasons, you will go down for manslaughter". I find that totally horrifying. I fully accept that where somebody is—
Lord Ackner: What I understood we were seeking to do is to prevent, in the situation which the noble Viscount has described, the unfortunate soldier going down for murder, which is what would happen to him now. The amendment is designed to reduce that charge from murder to manslaughter. No one is suggesting that he should end up with no penalty; but with manslaughter there is a determinate sentence—a period of time which the court thinks is appropriate. The amendment does not, as I understand it, seek to make matters worse; on the contrary, it seeks to make them considerably better.
Viscount Brookeborough: It is my understanding that when a soldier in Northern Ireland has been brought up on such a charge, it has been found that at the time he acted as he justifiably saw fit and that is understood by others, he has been charged with murder and found not guilty. I believe that that charge

1451
of murder and the finding of not guilty is much more preferable for somebody whom we put in that situation than to find him guilty then of manslaughter.
Lord Belstead: I recognise that the proposition to which the new clause seeks to give effect is one which has been dealt with twice by my noble friend Lord Colville in his annual reports. It has also been considered by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the law relating to life imprisonment and has been advocated by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland.
I acknowledge that the primary motivation for a change to the law of this kind relates to the concerns about policemen and soldiers who are involved in shooting incidents where death occurs. But clearly such a change should be to the general criminal law rather than the emergency legislation, since the application of a provision of this kind would not be confined to terrorist situations. Equally, it might be preferable, although not, I accept, essential, that a change of this kind to such a fundamental area of the law should be effected on a UK-wide basis rather than solely within Northern Ireland. It could be regarded as invidious if we appeared to single out for special legislative treatment soldiers and RUC officers, in their anti-terrorist roles.
There are also practical issues to consider. Would we, in introducing a new provision of this kind, be placing the security forces in a serious dilemma when confronted by a situation which demanded a split-second decision? The amendment uses the word "reasonable" in no fewer than three separate places. It may be possible, although it will never be easy, for a court to judge what is reasonable and what is excessive in certain circumstances, and whether, in retrospect and with a full opportunity to consider all the issues, a person's belief was a reasonable belief.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough put his finger on an important point when he asked how a soldier or policeman, confronted by a situation where urgent action is needed, is to make such a fine judgment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, replied quickly to that question and said that the objective of all this is to help the soldier in a situation which could lead to a charge of murder. But is there not a danger that that uncertainty on which my noble friend Lord Brookeborough put his finger might inhibit the use of force where such force was in fact necessary and possibly appropriate to save life or prevent crime?
I should be foolish if I did not recognise that a powerful case has been made out, supported by the noble and learned Lord; but it is a case which it is not appropriate to be dealt with in the emergency provisions legislation, even though the noble and learned Lord might wish to find a home for it having been unable to find one in the Criminal Justice Bill. On that ground alone, I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment. I do so with the assurance that the Government will continue to consider the issues and whether a change to the general law along the lines proposed is desirable.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: In view of the Minister's response to at least two earlier amendments, I was not optimistic that the Government would respond favourably to this amendment. My pessimism was well-founded. I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who was a member of the select committee, for his powerful support. The advice he has tendered to the Committee should carry considerable weight with the Government.
I am encouraged to believe that we should do some further work in connection with the amendment and return to it at a later stage, when I hope that I shall be able to fight for it with far more vigour than I did this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 62 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Orders and Regulations]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 46, line 13, leave out from ("below") to ("and") in line 14.
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 47. The amendments are of a technical nature. They relate to the procedure to be applied to any Order in Council made under the power conferred by paragraph 18(1) (a) of Schedule 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 46, line 35, after ("4") insert ("or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5").
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): Amendment No. 47 has been spoken to. However, before I call it I remind the Committee that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List. In line 1 of the amendment the words "or 18A" should be left out. I now call Amendment No. 47.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 46, line 37, at end insert:
("(5A) No Order shall be made under paragraph 18(1) (a) or 18A of Schedule 4 to this Act unless a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 67, 68 and 69 agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 48:
Before Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule:

SCHEDULE
INDEPENDENT ASSESSOR OF MILITARY COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES IN NORTHERN IRELAND
Tenure of office
1.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the Independent Assessor shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(2) The Independent Assessor shall be appointed for a term not exceeding three years.
(3) The Independent Assessor may at any time resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State may remove the Independent Assessor from office—

(a) if he has without reasonable excuse failed to carry out his duties for a continuous period of six months or more;

(b) if he has been convicted of a criminal offence;

(c) if a bankruptcy order has been made against him, his estate has been sequestrated or he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors; or

(d) if the Secretary of State is satisfied that he is otherwise unable or unfit to perform his functions.

(5) At the end of a term of appointment the Independent Assessor shall be eligible for re-appointment.
Remuneration etc.
2.—(l) There shall be paid to the Independent Assessor such remuneration and such travelling and other allowances as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2)In the case of any such holder of the office of Independent Assessor as may be determined by the Secretary of State there shall be paid such pension, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of him, or such payments toward the provision of a pension to or in respect of him, as may be so determined.
(3)The approval of the Treasury shall be required for the making of a determination under this paragraph.
Staff
3.—(1) The Independent Assessor may appoint such number of employees as he may determine.
(2)The remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of persons employed by the Independent Assessor shall be such as he may determine.
(3)The approval of the Secretary of State, given with the consent of the Treasury, shall be required for the making of a determination under this paragraph.
Reports
4.—(l) The Independent Assessor shall prepare an annualreport on the performance of his functions which he shall submit to the Secretary of State who shall cause it to be published and lay copies of it before each House of Parliament.
(2) The Independent Assessor may make a report to the Secretary of State about any matter which comes to his attention in the course of the performance of his functions.
Disqualification
5. In Part III of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (other disqualifying offices), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
"Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 40. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 76, leave out lines 27 to 33 and insert:
("25B.—(l) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him), contravenes a restraint order is guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or a fine or both;

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

(2) Nothing in subparagraph (1) above shall be taken to prejudice any power of the High Court to deal with the contravention of a restraint order as a contempt of court."")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Rosyth Naval Base
10.22 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their intentions for the future of the Rosyth naval base.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, even at this late hour I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the matter of the Rosyth naval base. Some 10 days ago I met a group of shop stewards from the Rosyth naval base who represent all the unions on the base. There are some 10 unions on the base and they call themselves the Rosyth Naval Base Forum. I was greatly concerned by the accounts they related to me although the matter had been reported in the Scottish newspapers for some time.
The shop stewards made it clear that normally they do not combine to the extent that they had on this occasion. However, they had taken such a step on this occasion as the present situation constitutes a serious threat to them. The shop stewards had spoken to Members of Parliament from all parties and to Members of both Houses of Parliament. They had spoken to Ministers whenever they had the opportunity to do so. After listening to those men I felt it was necessary to try to obtain an announcement from the Government on this matter and to give the Government an opportunity to scotch some of the depressing rumours that are current in Scotland.
Sadly, I am now less hopeful that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, will be in a position to help. Last week the Secretary of State for Defence himself spoke at the Conservative Party Conference in Perth. He added nothing to the debate which in any way removed the very strong suspicion that decisions were about to be made which would be devastating for Fife and for the whole of East Central Scotland. That was reiterated by some of the speeches from the floor of the conference at Perth.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the affair is the way in which it has been handled. From all reports the Perth conference was far from pleased with the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence. It appeared that his speech had not initially been designed to dwell on the Rosyth issue but because of the succession of speakers from the floor urging in the strongest possible terms that the base should not be closed he had to say something about Rosyth. However, the rumours are strong, based on a leak to the media some weeks ago.
I find it difficult to believe that the Secretary of State for Defence, with whom I served on a number of long and arduous committees in another place—and one can get to know people reasonably well in another place—was personally involved in leaking the rumour to the media. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that there was a substantial leak. A great deal of damage has been done and the consequences for Scotland are difficult to exaggerate.
I am very well aware that there are a number of noble Lords who have put their names down to speak in this short debate who are far better equipped than I to deal with the strategic consequences of closing
1456
Rosyth. Therefore, I propose to confine myself mainly to the social problems that such a closure would bring about.
I take a little comfort from part of the Secretary of State's speech at Perth, as reported in the Glasgow Herald of 11th May. Mr. King is quoted as saying:
"There are strategic issues, there are human personal considerations, and there would certainly be the views of Ian Lang with the Scottish dimension as well".
Following that helpful statement one must ask at what point were the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Ian Lang MP, and the Scottish Office consulted. It seems to me that there should be active Scottish input into the deliberations from the very beginning of any review.
The Minister will be fully aware of what has become known as "the alternative Livesay plan to keep Rosyth open". The plan was apparently rejected by the Ministry of Defence without, so far as I know, any allowance for social or personal considerations such as those which Tom King spoke of at Perth. Surely an option such as that prepared by Vice-Admiral Livesay would have merited greater attention if the Scottish Office had been present to spell out the social consequences of closure.
My honourable friend the Member for Garscaddon in another place, who is Shadow Secretary of State, wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland at the end of February this year. He said:
"It is always more difficult to reverse a decision that has been taken. If the Scottish Office sits it out until approached it may well be too late to influence the course of events".
There has been a reply from Mr. Lang to that letter, but it is much the same as before. The Scottish Office is well aware of what is going on and was more than kept informed. I want the Scottish Office to be involved at the earliest stage when it is a matter concerning large numbers of people. There should be a social output from the beginning.
The House should know that the social and economic effects on Rosyth are horrendous. There could be a loss of 2,000 jobs if one includes both Rosyth and Pitreavie. The Scottish Office has estimated that a further 1,750 jobs could be lost as a result. About 3,000 uniformed personnel would leave the area. I hope that such job losses in an area where the unemployment rate is already well above the national average will be unthinkable. That is why there must be early and positive social input into the Admiralty spending review.
I have here a copy of a touching and forceful open letter sent to the Secretary of State for Defence by half a dozen naval wives in Rosyth. They are well aware that their husbands are not in a position to write, so they decided to write themselves. They have listed one or two points on which I hope that the Minister will be able to assist them.
The wives are concerned about the fact that they would have to vacate Rosyth involuntarily. They would be virtually forced out. Their employment would be disrupted, as would their children's education. The Minister must be well aware that a sudden move from the Scottish to the English education system, or vice versa, at a critical time can

1457
have a serious effect on children. There is great uncertainty among teenagers and those ready to leave school about what is likely to happen to them. I speak not only of the servicemen's children but of the childre 1 of other skilled people at the naval base.
The naval wives stressed another important point. Naval families who have served in the area previously and whose sons and daughters are stationed there frequently retire up there, so another difficulty would arise because the older people who had retired there to be with their children would again be separated from them.
Then there is the difficult question of housing. The price differential between Scotland and any other place to which the sailors or skilled people might be sent would be too much for most of them to bear. There are also problems with surplus married quarters accommodation. I understand that most of the accommodation falls under a five-year non-sale clause which would make it difficult to dispose of such property. Will families be able to remain in naval quarters if the base closes, although it would be a rather empty place?
The naval wives point out another sad fact. The wives of serving sailors would be separated from them if the husbands were moved to a post down south while the wives remained in Scotland. The wives point out rather poignantly that the divorce rate among the Royal Navy is higher than for any other of the services.
Local economic dependence on the naval base is tremendous. Without it, the whole area would be devastated.
I raise the issue tonight in an attempt to show that a proper defence review should examine all those social aspects which, sadly, most people in Scotland feel are too often ignored by Whitehall departments serving only their own special remit. I hope that tonight's debate will not only elicit expertise on purely defence matters and the strategic problems of the naval base, but will emphasise the dire social consequences of such a closure.
10.35 p m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for having raised this subject fairly early, given the rumours circulating in Scotland. It is common knowledge that the Government are considering reductions in defence in general. They have issued the consultation paper Options for Change. I am sure we all welcome the prospect of what is called the peace dividend. We can and should adapt to the end of the cold war, though we have to be ready for further changes in the Soviet Union, some of which may be unexpected and unpredictable. The Government may not have taken the relevant decisions concerning naval bases yet, and we may hear more about that this evening. I do not know. There are rumours that Rosyth may no longer be retained as a naval base. In undertaking their review I hope the Government will take into account the following points.
I suggest there are continuing requirements after the end of the Cold War which can best be met by a
1458
naval base at Rosyth. First, should the facilities be closed down there would no longer be a base for ships of the Royal Navy or NATO along the whole east coast of Britain. Second, Rosyth is a suitable centre for training in mines. There are sea areas nearby more suitable for practical work in that field than the crowded Channel, where the remaining naval bases would be. Third, Rosyth is most conveniently situated as a centre for vessels engaged in the protection of oil and gas installations and operations in the North Sea, especially in the northern area east of Shetland, where some of the most valuable and prolific oil fields are. Though production is gradually diminishing, it is likely to continue in parts of the North Sea for 30 or 40 years. Fourth, fishery protection services can best be controlled and serviced from the Firth of Forth. Much of their work is along the east coast and the waters to the north east.
There is a tradition of service in that part of Fife to the Royal Navy and the Rosyth base, in civilian employment as well as in uniform. As the noble Lord has said, in the event of closure unemployment in the area would increase sharply and inflict pain and uncertainty, unless a gradual run-down and coordinated introduction of appropriate viable alternative industry or services were arranged. The present workforce is familiar with the kind of work and commitments required. Earlier generations and other members of their families have been employed there. To lose all of that would be to jettison a valuable national asset.
I know that the trade unions concerned have been presenting a reasonable, restrained, but nonetheless cogent case for retaining a base at Rosyth, accepting that changes must be expected. I have not been lobbied by them or asked to see them, but I have read their written observations and respect the sensible case they have been making.
I am vice-president of the Parliamentary Maritime Group. I and my family are not a naval family but we are a military family—Army and RAF. I am keenly aware of the importance of the seas to Britain's national interests. Well chosen support for our naval strength is essential to protect us, to police the seas and to help our allies and the international community throughout the world.
10.40 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, if the debate goes on for a long time, I shall have to leave before it ends. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me. However, my last train is at 11.55 p.m., and it is about 50 miles for me to walk home. I do not intend to discuss the political question, trade unions, unemployment or the effect of closure on service personnel, their wives and children. I have been briefed. Despite that, I wish to speak only on the defence aspect of this matter.
I have said before in this House that I do not believe the beautiful idea that the Cold War is over. Khrushchev rose through the ranks and became the boss of the KGB. It is asking rather a lot to believe that now Russia is all sweetness and innocence and just wants peace with us. Since the end of the so-called Cold War, the Soviet Union has produced numbers of

1459
submarines. We no longer have the Iron Curtain as such and their army has been pushed back a long way; but we still have to face backfire bombers and submarines. That is an inescapable fact.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, if we do not have Rosyth, we have no bases down the whole of the eastern side of England and Scotland. There is no protection. We cannot send our vessels to protect the oil rigs or act as fishery protection and so on. What is more, should the Russians turn nasty, we will have no forces nearby to defend Norway and other places.
There need only be a minor change of government in the Soviet Union and suddenly the Cold War could be back with us with a vengeance. If we do not have Rosyth naval base, what are we to do? It is one thing to say, "Right, we shall reduce all these things because now we have peace". If highly skilled and trained personnel are scattered, how can they be brought back when they are needed? How long does it take to retrain people and reinstall facilities?
I have read that, as opposed to closure, there have been alternative plans made for Rosyth naval base which would in fact save£13 million. So there is a financial consideration. But I would suggest that what matters above all else is the defence of this country. Closing down Rosyth not only affects the defence of this country. It seems to me that we let down our NATO allies. What will they think? If the Government have not made up their mind, I ask them to think again not merely on the political issues but on the straightforward matter of defence.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his initiative in asking the Question. I also congratulate the trade unionists, about whom he spoke and who have spoken to me, on their splendid coverage in speaking to so many people in both Houses of Parliament.
As quickly as I can—hut it is an important subject—I must plead with the Minister to convey to his friends the importance of deterrence. Deterrence is not a phrase much used these days but it is vital. There is the need always to consider the importance of inadvertent signals which can so easily be misinterpreted by other countries, both friends and potential enemies. Friends in NATO could easily misinterpret this possible action. I shall say more with regard to potential enemies later. A good example was the Falklands and the proposed withdrawal of the "Endurance". We are told that the US ambassador's inadvertent signals to Saddam Hussein may well have caused the invasion of Kuwait.
There is need to remember always that we have no signs whatsoever yet of the Soviet Union reducing its naval new construction programme. There is recent evidence that the KGB is stronger than ever. Recent examples that I have seen of the active measures that the KGB used against Yeltsin make it remarkable that he was able to survive but frightening that these things could happen in a country which was supposed to be
1460
working towards democracy. The KGB is clearly operating in support of the very powerful military and the country is increasingly unstable.
It is crazy not to take these factors into account before one even starts to think about money. Thus, we must preserve the NATO deterrent and our part of it. My speech in the defence debate of 17th July last year at col. 837 is as relevant today, if not more so, than when it was made. I commend it to my noble friend when he has a chance to read it.
Rosyth, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, is the only naval base on the east coast of the UK. Travelling anti-clockwise, it is the only base between Portsmouth and the Clyde. It is also the only one from which sea defence of oil rigs can readily be mounted. It is proven as a base for minesweeping training and the fishery protection patrol. Creating a new base—which I believe has been suggested—will cost money over the next few years rather than saving money.
Rosyth is also the main surface ship Scottish home port for Scotsmen, who form a significant proportion of naval recruits and one which is higher in relation to the overall population of Scotland than is the case in the UK generally. Recruiting and retention could be seriously hurt by the naval base's removal. Surely, too, closure would be politically disastrous at this stage.
I make a serious point. If economies must be found, I suggest to my noble friend that he considers the grossly overstaffed Ministry of Defence. Some years ago a friend of mine who was a service chief of great distinction who was serving in the MoD replied, when asked by me about possible savings that were not being considered: "A massive reduction of assistant secretaries and their supporting pyramids would do no harm, much good, and save much money". I mean that very seriously.
Thus the Government must think again about Rosyth and delete it from their list of reductions. Strategy really must come before costing is finalised. The naval base personnel need to know that decision sooner rather than later. Morale has dropped steadily since 23rd December, when the possibility of closure was first mooted. And what a date to choose—just before Christmas and the new year. Of course the date was not chosen; it just happened when Parliament rose for the Christmas Recess. No thought was given to the misery that people might suffer from their uncertainty during the holiday period. I am reminded of the causes of the Invergordon mutiny in the 1930s.
I implore my noble friend to persuade his colleagues not only to make the decision on the issue for which all noble Lords who have spoken have called for but also to announce that decision soon in order that the uncertainty can be removed.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest. Of those speakers listed tonight I am the only one who lives in Fife. It also happens that the base bears the name of my distinguished ancestor. That is not an interest that weighs with me; it is merely an historical accident.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for raising the subject tonight. The issue is not one of

1461
employment but of national defence; it used to be called defence of the realm. There are reasons for seeking information now. It is interesting to note that Rosyth is now the most modern naval base of the traditional naval bases. It was authorised in 1906 because the considered opinion of the Cabinet was that the old three bases—that is Chatham, Portsmouth and Devonport—were becoming obsolete. The last two are still in use. It is useful to seek information because the dockyard part of the naval base represents the largest engineering employer in Scotland. It has been privatised and it is diversifying energetically. Nonetheless, if it is to survive in anything like its present form it needs a substantial amount of naval work. Its programme of work was seriously disrupted by the scrapping of a nuclear submarine which was due for a major refit.
I also wish to draw attention to the personnel problems that will be caused if the base is closed. It is traditional in the Navy that Rosyth postings are unpopular. If one wishes to be posted to a Rosyth ship one can go for as long as one likes and to as many as one likes in succession. If the base is closed there will be a great disturbance to the people who have been established there for many years doing their best for the Navy. That would be regrettable.
Furthermore, there is an operational problem. If Rosyth is closed the two remaining bases of any size, Portsmouth and Devonport, would not have the capacity to accommodate our present fleet, even if it were at its present active size of 35 frigates and major ships. It must be remembered that not so long ago we were assured of a policy of maintaining a fleet of about 50 frigates.
I return to what was said by my noble friend Lord Mottistone about the strategic implications. The issue is one of strategy. The Cold war has not ended. All that has happened is that the frontier of the Iron Curtain has been pushed back eastwards by revolutions in the client states. The threat to the northern maritime flank of NATO remains as it was; it is unchanged. The Russian empire is disintegrating. When an empire is falling to pieces there is always the danger that it will engage in a foreign adventure. History has taught us that lesson many times. Mention was made of the Falklands where President Galtieri decided that he had better take his chaps' minds of their miseries at home and earn a little popularity. We defeated him there in the main with naval power.
The northern flank is really the Denmark Strait, as it is sometimes called, where the "Bismarck" was sunk and where, alas, our own HMS "Hood" was also lost. It extends from Norway to Labrador, some 80 degrees of longitude. The old concept of Admiralty seems to have deserted our Government.
Perhaps I may mention an episode which I believe occurred in my lifetime, in the 1920s. The Admiralty Board heard the alarming news that the railway from Plymouth to Exeter was to be electrified. It immediately demanded from the Great Western Railway that it maintain 50 engines permanently in
1462
steam for the benefit of the Admiralty if such a daring innovation was to be contemplated. At least it did not demand sailing trains.
As my noble friend Lord Mottistone, said, the Russians still have a huge naval programme. In spite of their economic difficulties, there is no sign that it is to be reduced in any significant sense. We should not—and I repeat not—rely exclusively on the United States or on Trident. Things can go wrong if one relies upon one system.
From the points I have made, I consider that a northern base is a strategic necessity. It has been shown to be so in two wars and the threat still remains in the North. Your Lordships will recall the old nursery rhyme:
"For want of a nail, a shoe was lost".
It went from a shoe to a horse and from a horse to a war. If we drop our guard we may lose not only a war but a nation which has existed uninvaded for over a thousand years. I ask the Government to consider very carefully the strategic implications of what is proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said earlier that it was thought that perhaps£13 million would be saved. That is roughly one sixth of the price of a frigate and slightly more than the annual cost of a Bill which did not find favour with your Lordships recently. Therefore I suggest that this idea should be firmly squashed in the very near future.
10.58 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not putting down my name to speak. I had a commitment earlier today in Scotland and I was not sure whether I should arrive in the House in time.
My noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults and other noble Lords have pointed out the strategic importance of Rosyth from a geographical point of view and I shall not repeat what has been said. However, I should like to enlarge upon the point made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone; namely, that Rosyth is of considerable strategic importance as regards recruitment for attracting young Scots to join the Navy and, indeed, the Army and the RAF.
Rosyth is very much a part of Scottish life. I see that my noble friend Lord Reay, who is chief of the clan Mackay, is sitting beside the Minister and if the Minister is not aware of that, he will tell him about it. Rosyth is part of our national consciousness and pride. In the Scottish press we read constantly of the comings and goings of the naval ships. Open days are held for the public. Sailors from our own and other navies are a familiar sight about the streets of Edinburgh, Fife and the Lothians. We see the ships arriving and leaving as we cross the Forth road or rail bridge. Indeed, I was among the many people who watched two minesweepers as they left the Forth estuary for the Gulf not too long ago.
It is hard to know precisely how many young men and women join the armed forces because of Rosyth. As my noble friend said, Scotland produces more recruits per head of the population than other parts of

1463
Great Britain. It seems likely that Rosyth plays a considerable part in that. Were it to close, recruiting in Scotland would certainly suffer.
The most important question is whether we can afford not to keep the naval base at Rosyth. It can only be closed if the number of ships in our Navy is to be considerably reduced. As my noble friend Lord Cochrane said, there would not be enough room to accommodate the ships that already exist. Attractive though the prospect of the peace dividend is, are we really wise further to reduce our Navy?
It is not just a question of whether the Cold War is really over. In an article today in the Glasgow Herald there appeared a quotation from a recent speech by Ronald Lehman, director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. He said:
"it is indeed ironic—perhaps the central irony of our time—that just as the United States and the Soviet Union are moving seriously to reduce and control our weaponry, other nations, many found in regions of great tension, are moving in precisely the opposite direction".
The article points out, for example, that,
"Pakistan is now so close to joining the nuclear club that President Bush can no longer certify to Congress that Pakistan does not have the bomb".
Pakistan sees its weapon as a weapon capable of being used in the Moslem cause. North Korea signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985, but since then has refused to allow its weaponry to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Algeria is the only Arab country not to sign the new Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is thought that it could produce enough plutonium to build a bomb by 1998.
Those are only three examples of the instability that still exists in the world. Dare we reduce our Navy? If we do not reduce it we need Rosyth. Even if we do reduce it, for the many reasons enunciated by your Lordships, we still need Rosyth. I hope that the Government will give close attention to what is being said about the issue. I attended a fringe meeting during the Conservative conference at Perth last week. It was in a fairly big room which was packed; there was standing room only. There was very strong feeling about the issue and not just from the trade union side of the discussion. There was strong feeling about the meaning of Rosyth to Scotland and to people who were there. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the debate.
11.3 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too apologise to the House for keeping it late. I have been at a meeting in Paris. I intended to stay the night but when this valuable Question was tabled I did without my good dinner in order to be here.
One of the interesting points about the debate was the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. When I saw the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I said to myself, "Ah, he wants a base in the Isle of Wight". But instead he put with great force, great clarity and feeling the broad view which I am afraid it appears the Government have not taken.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I met the three gentlemen from the workforce in the base at
1464
Rosyth. I was delighted by the competence with which they had gone about their business—they were perhaps more competent than the Government. They had gone to the universities and asked people to lay down the social and economic arguments, and produced a first-class case. I trust the Minister will tell us that he has read and studied it with great care.
The issue boils down to a question of dispersal. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and others have made the point that we have North Sea oil and that our wealth is to be protected from Devonport. That appears to be a little illogical. The argument about the training ground for minesweeping is very strong.
The Government should consider the broader aspect, and of cutting out a whole naval base, concentrating naval strength and repairs in the south, is illogical. In the south there is a collection of skills and a core. It may be that that will be cut in a general cut-down, but even if that were so, one keeps the core. I hope that the Government have considered that point. I hope also that the Government have carried out proper studies concerning cuts in the south at Devonport, Chatham and elsewhere. I hope that we will not receive the unadorned answer that we have had until now, that no decision has been taken. That is a pretty poor answer.
The matter was sprung on the Scottish public by a leak which showed clearly that plans were being made. I ask the Government specifically whether plans have been made for a reduction in the facilities on the south coast and whether they have been studied with the same care. Can they say whether any decision has been taken in that regard? It is an extremely serious subject. My neighbour, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, put the matter in a nutshell when she said that the political case for the Government to look at the matter is extremely strong. I do not want to see the Conservatives do particularly well in Scotland, but from their own point of view of self-preservation they should look at the issue on social and economic grounds. As regards the defence point of view, as suggested by many people, the Government should think about the question very seriously and decide to keep the naval base.
11.7 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, my noble friend made a very pertinent point in asking how far the Government have examined the possibility of reducing base facilities in southern England. That must be part of the equation when they come to make their decision. The Government have heard a very powerful case tonight for retaining Rosyth naval base. We are discussing the naval base and not the dockyard. I shall be very surprised to hear that there are plans to abandon the dockyard, with its vital, huge and expensive facilities for refitting Tridents. We are talking about the base tonight.
I am not sure that I found the most cogent argument for keeping Rosyth the contention that we should maintain our strong Navy and not cut the number of frigates and submarines as suggested in Options for Change. I do not find that a powerful argument for Rosyth. Though modest, Options for

1465
Change was right. I am not aware that any political party opposes Options for Change. The case for reducing from 50 to 45 the numbers of frigates and destroyers can be made. The Government are proposing to cut the submarine fleet by 10. These decisions can be defended. Therefore I wonder whether it is wise to put forward the case for retaining Rosyth as part of the argument for not reducing our naval capability at all.
We have heard some very gloomy speeches tonight about the state of East-West relations. Despite the Gulf and the chaos inside the Soviet Union, or because of it, the Soviet threat to the United Kingdom is very much less than it has been in past years. The Government accept that fact; indeed, all parties have accepted it. Therefore, if we are proposing to reduce our naval capability we must not shirk from the logical consequence that there will be a smaller requirement for base facilities in this country.
However, what we can and do say to the Government is that the decisions must be taken in the proper manner. They must fully take into account the kind of social and economic factors mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. They must also take into account the strategic points made by my noble friend and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, about the strategic positioning of Rosyth. All those factors must be taken into account, together with the possible options on the south coast.
I am also bound to say that I find it surprising that the Rosyth base is being discussed in this way. I visited it 25 years ago as Navy Minister. I have no reason to suppose that it is not as well run and as cost-effective today as it was then. I note that Options for Change—and this is a point which I believe no one has yet made—does not call for any reduction in the number of mine counter-measure vessels. That is indeed not the case. The number is 40 today and Options for Change says that it should be 40 tomorrow. Moreover, it said so before the advent of the Gulf war. If anything; proved the importance of these vessels, it was the part they played in the Armilla Patrol and in Operation Granby.
That is a vital point so far as concerns the Government. It is the specialty of the Rosyth naval base. There is also the question of fisheries protection which was mentioned by a previous speaker. That force is not big enough. I have said that I concede a reduction in the number of our frigates, destroyers and submarines; but I do not concede a reduction in the number of the fishery protection vessels. On the contrary, I believe that there is a very good case to be made for strengthening that protection. Bearing that in mind, it seems to me that Rosyth easily suggests itself for the purpose.
I am not trying to dodge the question. It is very important not to do so. But if we believe that a safe reduction is possible in our naval capacity, that implies a reduction in base facilities. We must insist that the Government make their choice properly and that they make their decisions in the right order, with the big questions coming first. For example, how big a Navy do we want? How much of it will be above and how much below the surface? Then one comes to
1466
consider base facilities. That is the order in which the decisions must be made. I have seen no great evidence to suggest that the Government are approaching the matter in that way. They may have made the right decision about the frigates and the destroyers, but they approached the issue not on grounds that were respectable from a defence point of view; they approached it on the grounds of Treasury pressure. There is no questioning that fact. Indeed, that is the conclusion which the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence came to and which it set out in its report.
As I said, we must insist that the Government answer the questions which have been put to them tonight as to why it should be Rosyth. Why not the South? Where can Rosyth's interests be matched with the interests of the country? Those are the questions we want answered. We want to be assured that the Government will take the decision they have to take in a proper and appropriate manner.
11.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, perhaps I may say, first, how pleased I am to be able to reply to this debate. It gives me the opportunity to focus upon Her Majesty's Naval Base at Rosyth, about which there has been much discussion and, indeed, speculation over recent months. I am certainly aware of the views that have been expressed by Members of Parliament and by the people who live near to or work at the naval base about the importance of Rosyth both in defence terms and to the local community. I shall examine those aspects later in my reply.
First, I should like to talk briefly about the beginnings of Rosyth and outline the contribution that it currently makes towards our defence effort. Rosyth, in common with the other naval bases in the United Kingdom, has a distnguished history in support of the Royal Navy. It came into existence at the beginning of this century owing to the rapid expansion of German naval strength and the need for a dockyard to repair what was then the newest and most powerful type of battleship, the Dreadnought. Land was first bought in 1903 and construction began in 1909. The first warships were docked there in 1916 and from 1917 the Grand Fleet was based there. In 1925 Rosyth went into a period of care and maintenance although it became operational again in 1938. In 1963 it was decided that Rosyth would be a refitting base for nuclear-powered submarines. This commitment has been maintained with the decision in 1984 that refitting facilities would be developed for Trident submarines.
Rosyth supports two main activities, the naval base and the royal dockyard. It also supports a number of lodger units such as an establishment of the Defence Research Agency, degaussing facilities, a chart maintenance depot and a marine services school and depot. The dockyard complex, which is commercially managed and is a separate entity albeit within the confines of the base, undertakes the refit, repair and maintenance of warships. The principal function

1467
under debate today is the operational support of ships. Rosyth is the base port for and provides operational support for four of our Type-42 air defence destroyers, HM Ships "York", "Edinburgh", Liverpool" and "Glasgow". It is also the base port for the majority of the Royal Navy's minor war vessels which carry out many tasks, although the two primary capabilities are mine counter-measures and fishery protection, a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
The naval base provides these ships with maintenance, technical and logistic support, together with specialist facilities and back-up support for personnel based there. Teams of personnel are also deployed from Rosyth to support the mine counter-measure vessels when they are operating away from the base, such as is being done in the Gulf, a point well drawn out by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. Some 2,400 civilians are employed in and around the naval base. There are also some 4,300 uniformed personnel at Rosyth either in shore jobs or serving on board ships which are based at Rosyth.
Rosyth naval base has been called on to provide ships and personnel in support of many naval operations. Over the past 10 years this has included involvement in Operation Corporate, the Falklands Islands conflict, in 1982. Mine clearance in the Suez Canal was undertaken in 1984 during Operation Harling. Operation Cimnel in 1987 was the occasion of the first mine counter-measure deployment in the Gulf. More recently, there was Operation Granby.
I know that noble Lords are aware of the important contribution made by the mine counter-measure vessels which were deployed to the Gulf in September last year. Prior to hostilities they were employed in conducting route surveys to the main Gulf ports and checking that potential mine danger areas were clear. In mid-February they began mine clearance operations preparatory to a possible amphibious operation. Even though hostilities have ended, the MCMVs are carrying on with the important work of clearing designated minefields.
I know there have been concerns about the fact that some vessels which left from Rosyth at the beginning of the conflict have returned to a new base port at Portsmouth at the end of their deployment. This routine transfer has been planned for several years and was no surprise to the crews or their families. It has no bearing on the future of the naval base.
I said at the beginning of my reply that I wished to address the concerns expressed by many people, including noble Lords, about the way forward for Rosyth naval base. The United Kingdom, together with its major NATO allies, has been conducting a thorough review of the way in which our armed forces might be restructured for the mid-1990s in the light of changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The London NATO summit last July recognised that Europe had entered a new and more promising era, to which the alliance should and would adapt. While it would be premature to talk of an end to military risks in Europe, it is clear that any threat from the Soviet Union is much less immediate than it has been in the
1468
past, a point with which even the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would agree, despite what he has said. That has allowed us to plan for reductions in the resources that we devote to defence while planning the capacity for regeneration should the need occur.
We shall, however, be careful to maintain and, where necessary, enhance the quality of our defence provision. With fewer forces immediately available to meet unforeseen contingencies, it is all the more important that the forces we retain are properly manned, motivated, equipped and housed. The need to commit forces to the defence of Saudi Arabia and the eventual liberation of Kuwait did nothing to undermine the assumptions on which our plans for smaller forces were based. Indeed, it illustrated the effectiveness of flexible and mobile armed forces for which we are planning in the mid-1990s. It is too soon to draw firm conclusions from the Gulf conflict, but there are no indications that our approach to restructuring our forces will be undermined by the lessons of the war nor that we shall need to recast our broad plans.
The outline of the structure of British forces in the future was described last July by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. In announcing those proposals, he also made it clear that we would be looking for substantial savings in the support area. I confirm to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that that means from teeth to tail. If we are to achieve our aim of strong and reliable forces but at a lower level and at an affordable cost, we must carry our a rigorous and comprehensive review of all activities and resources in the support area to ensure that support is provided in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Through the means of a wide range of studies, we have been looking at all the establishments which form the fabric of support infrastructure. In the case of support to the Royal Navy, our early investigations indicated that we will have, by the mid-1990s, clear excess of capacity in the naval bases. Work on Rosyth naval base has formed part of that review and we have considered a variety of approaches, including full and partial closure. Full closure would entail the need to transfer ships currently based at Rosyth elsewhere; partial closure would involve the retention of some vessels at Rosyth and rationalisation of the support role and facilities of the naval base. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said during his speech to the Scottish Conservative Party conference last Friday, no decisions have yet been taken about the future of Rosyth. That, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is still the case today. In addition we have made the position on all the naval bases perfectly clear. We are reviewing the future of naval establishments in the light of the smaller Navy planned under Options for Change. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that all appropriate alternatives are being considered, and all relevant factors will be taken into account. No decisions have been taken and there are therefore no plans to close any particular base.
I want to take this opportunity to record my anxiety over media reports about the recent

1469
appointment of Vice-Admiral Hugo White as Flag Officer for Scotland and Northern Ireland. That was a routine career appointment which had been planned some months ago. Press speculation that Admiral White had been posted specifically to close Rosyth naval base was incorrect, and personal attacks on him were both unnecessary and unfair. Decisions on the future of naval establishments will be taken by Ministers. Admiral White will bring the same expertise and professionalism to his present job that he has shown in his previous appointments.
As I have already mentioned, we have made it clear that all relevant factors will be taken into account before a decision is taken on the future of Rosyth naval base. Those include the need to achieve the most cost-effective support for revised Navy force levels, strategic and operational factors and the implications for employment, the local economy and for civilian and naval personnel. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said last Friday that it is not simply a question of adding up the financial savings; other related issues will inform our thinking. Neither is there any question of singling out Rosyth or Scotland for unfair treatment. There has been substantial investment by the MoD at a number of locations in Scotland in recent years, and more than half of the current investment in construction projects for the Royal Navy is being spent in Scotland. We have been and remain in close touch with the Scottish Office, both at ministerial and official level and the views of the Scottish Office will form part of our deliberations. I emphasise that point to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. In addition, our NATO allies are well aware of the broad detail of our options work as outlined by the Secretary of State last year, and this has formed the basis of subsequent discussions with them. The provision of logistic support, however, is a national rather than an alliance responsibility.
1470
We have received representations from many people about the future of Rosyth, and assessments of the possible impact on the local economy and employment. We are aware of the fears that members of the workforce have about possible redundancy. We are also aware of the worry expressed by the wives of naval personnel based at Rosyth about the possibility that their husbands might have to move and their children's education might be disrupted. I wish to leave your Lordships in no doubt this evening that we take these matters seriously. We take all the matters raised by your Lordships seriously such as the matter of strategy mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cochrane, and morale and recruitment mentioned by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. We also take social and other concerns extremely seriously.
We recognise the general uncertainty that such a review creates. It has been suggested that we should publish all the options before any decisions are reached. We recognise the importance of consultation, particularly with trades unions. However, we cannot and will not shirk our responsibility for deciding what should be done. We are committed to full and open consultation once we have firm proposals to make, but we are not yet in that position.
There is no fixed timetable for completion of Options for Change work and Ministers will make announcements when it is appropriate to do so. Your Lordships may be disappointed that I cannot be more specific at this stage; but it is obviously important that we consider carefully all the alternatives before arriving at a view. I have taken careful note of the points raised in your Lordships' House on behalf of Rosyth naval base, its workforce and the local community. I assure your Lordships that we are alive to these anxieties and they will be given the due consideration they deserve as our work continues.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eleven o'clock.