Lords Sitting of 6 July 1998

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

Animal Research
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the effect of the delays and administrative burden which result from the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 on the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom's research in the medical sciences and biotechnology.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is essential that the use of animals in regulated procedures is properly controlled to ensure that protected animals are used only where that is fully justified. Applications need to be carefully scrutinised and processed. We have a responsibility to ensure that alternatives which replace or reduce animal use and which refine procedures to minimise suffering are used wherever possible.
The Animal Procedures Committee has asked whether or not there are unjustified barriers to research and development. The animal user community felt that there were in some circumstances. Some of the specific issues raised are being considered further by the Animal Procedures Committee and within the Home Office. I expect a further report to be published in the autumn.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the system of regulating animal experiments in this country under the 1986 Act is the most rigorous anywhere? Does he further agree that it is counterproductive in many respects? Not only does it often hamper entirely beneficial scientific research; it also causes a large number of animals to be killed without purpose. Given that Germany has modified its equivalent legislation because of the burdens placed on industry and science, will the Minister undertake to consult with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Office of Science and Technology and the Department of Health? Will he undertake a review with them to examine the effects on science and industry before any new measures are introduced under the 1986 Act?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the 1986 Act is generally recognised as the most rigorous anywhere in the world—and quite right too. That is what public opinion in this country wants; namely, there should be a decent regard before animals are used for human purposes. I do not believe that scientific research is unduly hampered. We constantly consult colleagues in other departments and colleagues in Europe as to
950
whether or not there could be improvements. At present, the Animal Procedures Committee, under the Reverend Professor Banner, is carrying out a 10-year review of the Act which I expect to be published in early autumn.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, does the Minister agree that countries which are in competition with us internationally also have in place strict regulations very similar to ours? Would it not be difficult to modify our regulations and theirs to provide for easier use of animals? Nor should we do so, since our regulations probably provide the model for animal experimentation throughout the world.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's remarks, bearing in mind his well-known expertise in this area. Successive governments in this country—I repeat, quite right too—have looked to the policy of "the three Rs": replacement, refinement and reduction of animal use. That is the proper way ahead. We co-operate with other countries; however, we are proud to have decent standards in this context.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the 1986 Act is a Chinese copy of my Laboratory Animals Protection Bill, which was drafted by members of the scientific community in the hope of making peace between themselves and animal lovers?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if I knew what a Chinese copy was, I might be able to say yes. In any event, I am glad that the noble Earl and I agree that what was done was a sensible balance between competing interests enshrined in an Act of Parliament.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, for those of us who for many years strove to improve the lot of laboratory animals, may I encourage the Minister not to accept any diminution in the protection and welfare of animals used in laboratory experiments?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope I have made that plain. There are a number of different aspects. One is the animal welfare regime. Another is whether experiments in a particular discipline can be entirely justified. The Act requires us, rightly in my view, to ensure that if any licence application is made for experiments on animals, it must be demonstrated that alternatives are not available. Examining alternatives is a productive way ahead.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the great difficulty and expense incurred by scientists in professions allied to medicine as a result of the activities of so-called animal rights people? Has the Home Office any idea as to how to provide scientists with further protection?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. I am well aware of the difficulties and sometimes the dangers brought about by irresponsible campaigners who claim to be animal lovers. Whether they love their fellow

951
humans to quite the same extent is open to question. We constantly liaise with chief officers of police. It will not have gone unnoticed in your Lordships' House that the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, to the Crime and Disorder Bill dealing with head coverings on public demonstrations may be of use in this connection. We accepted that amendment and put it into effect in another place.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister share my perception that in general the UK research community is supportive of the framework which defines the standards of research involving the use of laboratory animals but is increasingly frustrated by the burdensome paperwork which accompanies it? Does he also agree that those administrative requirements are seen as more burdensome than those which obtain in other countries with major research bases? Against that background, can he confirm that there is an additional animal research project approval system in the pipeline over and above the requirements already in place?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have had frequent personal dealings not only with the pharmaceutical and research industries but also with academics who carry out similar experiments, and I am happy to confirm that there is general support for the policy of the three Rs. In the Home Office we constantly look to see whether the applications procedure can be simplified or the code of guidance made clearer. At the moment, as I said, the Reverend Professor Banner is conducting his review and I expect him to report in the autumn.

UK Entry Applicants: Costs
2.43 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the annual cost of dealing with the number of people applying for entry into the United Kingdom and whether any new measures are being considered to combat illegalities.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the total cost of immigration control at the ports is £125 million annually, excluding the self-financing overseas visa operation administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are using measures such as improved intelligence, prevention strategies overseas and harmonisation of inter-agency co-operation as part of the continuous drive to thwart evasion of immigration control.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of a report which appeared in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago indicating that immigration control now costs £2 billion a year, which is considerably in excess of the figure he gave, and that the list of applicants for entry has increased from 50,000 to 70,000, which is a considerable
952
jump? Can the Minister say whether this rate of increase applies only in the United Kingdom or whether it is also being experienced by our friends in Europe? If it is not being experienced by our friends in Europe, should we not reassess our position on the matter?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, quite often figures of the kind which my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick has quoted are not comparable with a figure given in answer to a specific question. I believe the figure I gave to be accurate. Current outstanding asylum applications stand at 52,000, not 70,000. I dare say that all our colleagues in western Europe have problems of this kind, pressures sometimes developing following particular political upheavals or events.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem arises from the fact that, alongside illegal immigrants, there are also those seeking asylum who have every legitimate reason to do so. They include people who have suffered what in some cases amounts to torture in fighting for democracy in their own countries. Is not the difficulty for the Home Office in distinguishing between the illegal immigrants, whom none of us wants to see, and the legitimate asylum seekers, whom we all want to help?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that to be a perfectly valid point, which was well made if I may say so. One perhaps needs to put it into context. There were 80 million passenger arrivals in this country from the European Union last year. From countries outside the European Economic Area there were a further 11 million. Subdivided within that are the different categories and others to which the noble Baroness referred. I believe it is generally felt that our present regime for dealing with illegal immigration and asylum seekers leaves a good deal to be desired, which is why my honourable friend Mr. O'Brien is presently conducting a review of it.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is right in her concern? Is it not the case that the queue of asylum seekers seeking to have their applications processed is far too long? There are now 52,000 applicants. How many were there a year ago? How long do they have to wait now, and how long did they have to wait a year ago? Are Her Majesty's Government making progress?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are making limited progress; but there are still no less than 9,400 outstanding cases pre-1993. That is an indication of how long the queue has become for some people. We try to deport those who are eligible to be deported. We try to prevent illegal entry, which has become something of a criminal ruse for many well-organised gangs. We have to draw a balance between decent consideration of those whose cases may be genuine and requiring people to leave who have no legitimate, lawful ground to be in this country.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the new European style passport is easier

953
to forge than the old blue British passport, and, if so, what steps the Government are taking to combat this aid to illegal entry?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think it is an aid to illegal entry. Without going into too much detail, which probably would not be requested by your Lordships, I have myself been to Heathrow and I can tell the House that there are extremely sophisticated devices in place to detect forgeries of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord. In fact, people are constantly being found in possession of forged documents, which makes it an easy first step to secure their departure from the jurisdiction.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that visitors make an important contribution to tourism in this country; that in many cases they pay towards the cost of their application by paying a visa fee; and that illegal immigrants are but a very small number compared to the millions of visitors who enter this country legally?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course I confirm that. That is why I tried to put the figure of 91 million visitors as part of the context. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right. As I indicated, those who apply for visas participate in a self-financing regime and therefore there is no additional cost to public funds deriving from that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister say whether I am right that an Answer was given in this Chamber some months ago to the effect that the average time taken to deal with an applicant for entry to this country, assuming the case went to appeal, was five years and that during those five years most applicants were supported by finance from this country? Is that not the reason why the figure—whether it is the figure the Minister gave or the one I gave—represents an enormous sum of money? Is not the objective to get the average time taken to deal with an application down below five years, which will then be reflected in a reduced cost?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am certain that I did not give an average figure of five years. Very often the asylum appeal procedure is concluded in much less time than that. However, any delay for people in those circumstances is to be avoided. Last year, 7,000 failed asylum seekers were removed.

Regional Airport in AONB: Planning Application
2.50 p.m.
Lord Bridges Lord Bridges asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is in accordance with government policy for a planning application regarding the creation of a regional airport in an area of outstanding natural beauty to be determined by a local planning authority
954
without a public inquiry, and before the completion of that authority's own inquiry into its local plan policies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, our plan-led system of development control requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. We advise in Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 that account can be taken of policies in emerging plans which are proceeding towards adoption or approval. In preparing development plans, local planning authorities are required to take into account the Government's policies on different aspects of planning, including those relating to areas of outstanding natural beauty. Individual planning applications may be subject to a public inquiry if called in by the Secretary of State or on appeal following refusal of planning permission.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for replying in such detail to the Question, of which I sent her some particulars, though she has not answered it in quite such a positively negative manner as I would have hoped.
Does the Minister realise that in the case about which I wrote to her considerable commercial pressure is being brought to bear on the local authority by the developer to determine the case within the 16-week period laid down by the department's rules? What steps are the Government taking to inform the local authorities of their policy, to which local planning authorities do not seem to be paying much attention? Does the Minister feel that this case falls within the rules of the department set for prematurity?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the anxieties of the noble Lord in relation to that application; indeed, I read the debate which took place in your Lordships' House two years ago in that regard. It contained another good example of an oxymoron, I seem to remember; that of a charm offensive.
It is a matter of concern expressed both in the context of the current planning application and the policies proposed for the site in the Suffolk coastal local plan, first alteration, about which an inquiry is due to take place in November 1998. The Government Office for the Region, which has a responsibility to monitor the progress of certain planning applications, will do so carefully in this case. If necessary, my right honourable friend can call in the application or issue a holding direction to prevent the local planning authority from issuing a decision without his authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out, in some cases it may be justifiable for a local authority to refuse planning permission on the basis of prematurity.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this land, at the former RAF station at Bentwaters, is needed for housing in accordance with the Deputy Prime Minister's policy to make the

955
maximum use of brown land rather than sensitive green land in meeting housing requirements in this country? Does she recognise also that in the three constituencies involved—Suffolk Coastal, Central Suffolk and South Suffolk—there is full employment under the Beveridge criteria? Does she accept that a regional airport in that area would have major infrastructure implications incurring considerable costs for the taxpayers in the building of roads and so forth which do not presently exist? Finally, does she recognise that the national implications of this case make it far too important to be left for determination by the Suffolk Coastal District Council?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's final point, the policy regarding call-ins is to be selective and in the main to allow local determination of these issues. However, as I said earlier, I understand the anxieties. We are dealing with an area of outstanding natural beauty and a presumption against major development that exists in all such areas. That is the reason the Government Office will be monitoring carefully the progress of the current planning application and advising the Secretary of State accordingly.
I note what the noble Lord said about the need for housing rather than employment in that area. There has been a chequered history surrounding the site and the closure of the US Air Force base took a large chunk out of the local economy. That is of concern, given that, in addition to being an area of outstanding natural beauty, it is also a rural development area.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one point she has not mentioned is that the planning application is also outside the Suffolk county structure plan for airports, which specifically states that any airport that is to replace Ipswich airport should not be within an AONB? That departure was advertised by the district council. Does she also agree that so far the district council appears to be proceeding along the right lines? It made the right advertisements. A number of questions need to be answered in relation to the application. I hope that the Minister can assure me that she will be putting pressure on the district council to come to the right decision, which is clearly one that takes account of the extreme environmental sensitivity and the general unsuitability of a large airport on that site; and the fact that it is generally desirable that such a decision should be made locally.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is right that any application for development within an AONB must take account of policy guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 7. That states that, in general, policies and development-controlled decisions affecting areas of outstanding natural beauty should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and has the presumption against major development that I noted earlier.
I recognise what the noble Lord says about the Suffolk development plan. It is in the difficult situation of various states of the planning process being at various
956
stages of their own development. However, as I said earlier, I recognise the possibility that a local determination may be considered by the local planning authority to be premature because of the development that is taking place in terms of structure and other development plans.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that that application for an airport has large regional consequences as well as merely local ones? There may also be national implications. Does the Minister agree that the whole problem of planning, from the point of view of a local authority, is that there is no context of a national airports policy against which it can make a judgment?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept that, almost by definition, any application for a regional airport will have regional implications and also that the policy with regard to regional airports generally is one of national concern in the context of national aviation policy. I hope that we can set a framework in the White Paper which will be published later this month on integrated transport policy. We are also looking specifically at the issue of regional airports and the effect, for example, on the economy and the environment and doing that in the context of a study of regional airport policy in the south-west.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Suffolk County Council is wrestling with airfield commercialisation in another of its areas of outstanding natural beauty; namely, at Nayland? That is Constable country right in the middle of the Stour Valley. Can she therefore given an assurance to the House that that area of outstanding natural beauty will not be threatened by civil aviation developments in the same way as the Suffolk coastline is now being threatened by the proposed regional airport development at Bentwaters?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I cannot give specific assurances in regard to specific or potential applications. I have tried to make clear that the general rules regarding areas of outstanding natural beauty exist and are clear for local planning authorities to take into account. The whole issue in relation to regional airports should be considered in the context of regional and local planning. It is in those contexts that the regional office government officers will monitor individual applications. If they consider that there is a national interest issue which ought to be referred to the Secretary of State, they will advise accordingly.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many aspects of the proposal require detailed consideration, including the extent and the kind of use which has been referred to by other noble Lords this afternoon? Is she satisfied that local planning authorities have the appropriate planning powers and the ability to impose planning conditions which are adequate to control those kinds of development; or is it a matter in

957
which the Government need to be involved in the context of airport policy within the region and nationally?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, our plans for regional planning guidance will ensure that in future a regional transport plan is included in regional planning guidance. That would allow exactly that kind of strategic context to be set for each region.

Community Hospitals
3 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to protect the role of community hospitals in the National Health Service.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, in our White Paper The New NHS we set out the important role community hospitals can play in providing locally based services. As I am sure my noble friend is aware, within this broad framework, individual health authorities are responsible for determining the appropriate balance of care for their populations. But any local decision to change community hospitals—those which might be referred to the Secretary of State—will be upheld by my right honourable friend only if he is convinced that resources could be used differently to improve services for patients.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I appreciate that reassurance. But is the Minister aware of the growing national concern at the increasing tendency of local health authorities to consider, in their desperate search for economies, that community hospitals are expendable? Is she aware, for example, that Watlington Hospital in the rural area in which I live is now threatened with closure as part of an attempt to raise £1.5 million worth of cuts? Would it not be a tragedy if this Government, who believe so strongly in making community care more worth while and more humane, were to allow this vital element of local community care, which is so helpful, particularly to the elderly, just to be swept aside in the overall rush for competing claims?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I very much appreciate what my noble friend said about the Government's intention to improve community services. That is indeed the case. However, I would challenge her view that this is a widespread change which is happening throughout the health service. In fact, at the moment, only four possible community hospital closures have been referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—all four of those are in Cornwall—and he is now in very detailed discussion with the regional health authority responsible to try to achieve a solution which does not involve closing all those hospitals. As far as concerns the Oxfordshire situation, I would suggest to my noble friend that that health
958
authority has recently received a great deal of money which should help it to address the problems to which she referred. For example, it received £3.4 million more than any other authority in that region to combat so-called winter pressures, and £554,000 has recently gone to community rehabilitation services and £2.1 million in general to community schemes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many community hospitals and cottage hospitals can provide a useful local service and also respite care? Is she aware that in some areas of the country, such as Essex, these hospitals have been taken over by groups of general practitioners? They are used for local people and take pressure off the major hospitals.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords. I very much agree with the noble Baroness that there have been several imaginative schemes to keep open these services in different localities. The point is that there can be no national blueprint for this kind of service because in some places a traditional community cottage hospital may be the most appropriate way of spending local resources but in others community-based nursing services may offer the same services in a more appropriate way.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether her right honourable friend has consented to the closure of Putney Hospital? Does that not rate as a community hospital?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that decision is still under consideration. It is difficult to define community hospitals; but within the terms of the discussion this afternoon, that would not come within that category.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the new emphasis on primary health care? But is it not difficult for general practitioners to look after their patients if they do not have facilities to do that? Does she further agree that there is tremendous support from local people for community hospitals?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, there is always support for services which people feel are those which serve the local community well. However, I would suggest to the noble Baroness that there are new ways of offering that kind of direct care which may be attractive to people in different parts of the country. For example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced that we were extending the NHS Direct service, which is the 24-hour nurse-led helpline, so that it now covers 10 million people in the country. That may be one of the ways in which, imaginatively, we can improve these services in the future.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on child support.
Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): 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 Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Sentence Review Commissioners]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out (", and one of them shall he appointed chairman").
The noble Lord said: We are here today to consider amendments that have been put down to the Bill that is before your Lordships' Committee. I welcome the interest in the Bill that has been taken so far by noble Lords. It is part of our function to scrutinise and improve legislation. But noble Lords will be aware that it is the Government's position that the Bill must remain consistent with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. For that reason I cannot support many of the amendments that have been put down by noble Lords. However, there are one or two amendments which I will be able to accept on the grounds that they improve the overall terms of the Bill while remaining faithful to the agreement.
I shall take government Amendments Nos. 1, 45, 46 and 48 together, as they all relate to the same purpose. Government Amendment No. 1 removes that part of Clause 1(1) which requires that one of the commissioners appointed under the Bill by the Secretary of State is made chairman. But it is clearly not the Government's intention to remove entirely from the Bill the requirement to appoint a chairman.
Government Amendment No. 45, which relates to Schedule 1—the schedule that deals with the appointment of the commissioners—requires the Secretary of State to appoint a chairman or joint chairman. The effect of government Amendment No. 46 is that, if joint chairmen are appointed, they shall be jointly responsible for the preparation of the annual report. Government Amendment No. 48 amends Schedule 2, which deals with the Secretary of State's power to make rules regarding the procedures to be
960
followed by commissioners in exercising their functions. In particular, this would allow the Secretary of State to make rules regarding the allocation of functions under joint chairmen. nder the terms of the amendment, functions may be exercised jointly or concurrently.
I should explain why the Government believe it might be desirable to appoint joint chairmen for the sentence review body. Under the terms of the Bill,
"In making appointments the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the Commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland".
That is set out in Clause 1(3).
It is a challenging requirement. Many Members of the Committee will be fully aware of the contentious nature of appointments within Northern Ireland. The appointment of an individual may be welcomed by one group but condemned by another. The significance of the position of chairman of the sentence review commissioners cannot be underestimated. By allowing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to appoint joint chairmen, it may be easier for her to meet the test in Clause 1(3). I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We also support the agreement. I recognise that that sometimes can give rise to difficulty both for the Government and ourselves in looking at some of the amendments on the Marshalled List and some of those which it might be desirable, in other circumstances, to move or include in the Bill. The agreement is not perfect from everyone's point of view. We would not regard it as the perfect agreement, but it was the agreement that could be reached. That is extremely important in the context of this Bill. Frankly, if the agreement had not been reached, this Bill would not be acceptable at all. It is only acceptable within the terms of the agreement. I am sure that later we shall return to whether certain points are within both the letter of the agreement, which is easier to establish, and within its spirit, which is much more difficult to establish.
As regards Amendments Nos. 1, 45. 46 and 48, I entirely understand the reasons why the Government have now decided that it might be easier to appoint joint chairmen than a single chairman. I see no provision for that in the agreement or in the paper on the release of prisoners which was submitted to the talks. I am not quite sure of the status of that paper. It is clearly not part of the agreement, but it was before the participants to the talks who reached the agreement. Therefore, it seems to represent, in part at least, the spirit of the agreement for these purposes.
In talking about the chairmen and the members of the commission, the Government agreed in Committee in another place that the statutory lawyer on the commission—I use that term deliberately because the statute provides for a lawyer to be on the commission—should be a United Kingdom lawyer and not a foreign one. But the Government resisted attempts to ensure that a qualified lawyer should be the chairman of the sentence review body.

961
I am slightly surprised that the judges in this House have not been keener to see at least a qualified lawyer appointed to head this particular body because it has to make decisions on sentencing. In other contexts the judges often seem keen to emphasise their responsibility and experience, which I acknowledge. That amendment is not before us at the moment. I can see the wisdom in providing for the possibility of joint chairmen. Therefore, I am happy to support this particular amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: This afternoon we shall be considering two sorts of amendments: those designed to clarify the Bill and those designed to improve on the Good Friday Agreement. From these Benches we shall be very resistant to the second sort of amendment. The amendments before us at the moment do not fall into that category. They clarify and they are helpful. We shall support them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I ask for clarification. I wholly accept that one is bound by the scope and ambit of the agreement. If a question arises as to whether an amendment falls within the spirit or letter of the agreement, is a copy of the agreement available in the Library?
Lord Dubs: Yes. There is bound to be a copy in the Library. Indeed, copies were available in the Printed Paper Office. If any Member of the Committee needs to get one quickly, it is possible that I may be able to get one or two copies on demand.
Lord Tebbit: I apologise, but I had to leave the Chamber for a moment or two during the Minister's speech. Can he clear up one thing about which I have doubts? Who will appoint the chairman?
Lord Dubs: The Secretary of State will appoint the chairman.
Lord Tebbit: The amendment merely removes the words,
"and one of them shall be appointed chairman".
Am I misreading what is provided in the amendment?
Lord Dubs: Clause 1(1) states,
"The Secretary of State shall appoint Sentence Review Commissioners, and one of them shall be appointed chairman".
That will be by the Secretary of State. That is certainly my understanding of the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I thought that, with Amendment No. 1, we were also discussing Amendment No. 45. That amendment states:
"The Secretary of State shall appoint a chairman, or joint chairmen, from among the Commissioners".
That is to be inserted into the Bill if the Committee agrees.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 1, line 11, at end insert ("and
(c) at least one is representative of the victims of terrorist crime associated with Northern Ireland.").
The noble Lord said: In the debate that we had on this Bill last week, we heard very little about the victims. I accept of course that that is part of the price which the Government are prepared to pay in their hopes to appease republican opinion. But it seems to me that it would only be appropriate if, among the commissioners who are going to consider the early release of prisoners and the manner in which organisations have given up violence and come into the democratic fold, there was at least one person who will look at all the issues from the point of view of the victims of terrorist crimes associated with Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am very happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. It is an extremely important one if we are to achieve balance in that regard. I see no good reason why this amendment should be unacceptable to anyone. I am quite sure that Her Majesty's Government, having insisted that the victims of terrorism must not be forgotten—and we are grateful for those assurances both by the Minister and the Secretary of State herself—will fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Nor need there be any great difficulty in finding suitable nominees for the post. Members of the Committee will know that the former much-respected head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, produced a splendid report on the need for the victims of terrorist crimes to be kept in the forefront of all our minds and deliberations. Thus far a sense of balance has been conspicuous by its absence. The noble Lord has said that it is understandable that terrorists have to be placated in order to ensure that the mis-named "peace process" is kept on the rails. For that reason what were called "confidence-building concessions" were, until now, directed towards terrorists and their fellow travellers.
The amendment makes a modest start in redressing the balance. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield and his team will have no difficulty in providing representatives—if there is to be more than one—of the forgotten men, women and children who had the misfortune to get in the way of the bullets, sometimes because they were determined to live normal lives and in other cases because they persisted in serving the entire Northern Ireland community, of all faiths and of none.
Now is the time for an element of justice to be done. Including a representative of the victims would go a long way towards achieving the aim set out in subsection (3), to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred earlier, and would command widespread acceptance throughout the community. In my view, the amendment would do just that.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: In supporting this amendment, perhaps I may first urge the Government to

963
have very special regard to this paragraph from the Rowe Report on the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act:
"I agree that there is a reduced amount of terrorist activity, and of course there are ceasefires and a 10th April Agreement and a 'Yes' vote in the Referendum of 22nd May. But I have heard and seen real evidence of intimidation, exerted by paramilitaries, and the fear caused by it. And I refer to Chapter 3 above where I survey the facts about the present terrorist situation, and in my view those facts demonstrate what is the influence, still, of the paramilitaries. Furthermore, where a jury was empanelled to try a case which had paramilitary connections, jurors reported incidents in which they were obviously intimidated, and they were made apprehensive, and the trial was therefore aborted; and there were several attempts to complete the trial, but each failed, and for the same reason. To my mind the case is a clear illustration that juries cannot yet be asked to try cases where there is a paramilitary connection".
It seems to me that that is very relevant to our discussion here because it demonstrates clearly that even now there are victims—victims of severe and continuing intimidation. Someone must speak for them on the commission. I should have preferred that someone to be drawn from either Families Against Intimidation and Terror (FAIT) or from the RUC.
My second point relates to the amendment to Clause 3. I think that we need some information on the contents of the Criminal Justice (Release of Prisoners) Bill which is now being considered in Dublin. Would it be possible for the Minister to make such information available for Report stage? It would be extremely unfortunate if the drafting and the application of the Bill in the South could be used by paramilitaries in the North to exert pressure on Her Majesty's Government to be, as it will be said, as generous and as ready to take risks for peace as Dublin is. I submit that the threats to peace are not the same in both parts of Ireland.
Lord Monson: I, too, support the amendment for the reasons powerfully spelt out from various quarters of the Committee. As my noble friend Lord Molyneaux said, it is difficult to see how anyone could possibly oppose it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: When the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, spoke, he said, perhaps inadvertently, that there was no discussion of victims at Second Reading. He may not recall it, but from these Benches I made a point of speaking about victims and referred to Clause 14—
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I said, or at least I intended to say—perhaps I did not say it or perhaps the noble Lord missed it—that there had been no discussion of victims in the Minister's speech advocating the Bill. If the noble Lord reads the speech, I think that he will find that there is precious little about victims in it.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I spoke about victims at some length. I shall not waste the Committee's time by pursuing the point, but I did so particularly in the context of Clause 14 which deals with the notification of victims and which was inserted into the Bill not least because of pressure from the Alliance Party.
964
I agree entirely with the sentiment of this amendment. However, as worded, I believe that it presents considerable difficulties for any Secretary of State in identifying a representative from the wide variety of victims of terrorist crime. There are so many sorts of victims with so many different frames of mind. I should very much like to see on the commission someone who has been affected directly or indirectly by terrorist crime. The suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, is very interesting. She said that an organisation such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror might be involved. There are considerable problems in nominating one person who is representative of that whole wide body of horrible experience. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government propose to handle this thought, which is a very good one.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendment primarily because of the victims and their relatives. Secondly, I believe that all too often the Northern Ireland Office loses sight of the fact that it requires support from the population of Northern Ireland generally. A vast number of the people of Northern Ireland, going far beyond the families of the victims, would see acceptance of this amendment as an extremely sympathetic move in relation to the victims and their feelings. The Government are at present coming under quite a lot of fire for not having a truly representative Parades Commission. The same is said of various other organisations. It would help their case, perhaps more than any other, if they were to include on the commission a representative of the victims from within Northern Ireland.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. My noble friend Lord Dubs indicated earlier that he would accept some amendments; I hope that this will be one. As far as I can see, there can be no objection at all to the amendment. Indeed, there is very much to be said in its favour. As I understand it, one of the great problems in Northern Ireland with regard to this Bill is the outrage that so many victims and their families feel because although their loved ones are no longer here—or, if they are here, they are in dire circumstances and they cannot be released from the effects of the bombings—the perpetrators of the crimes who have not paid the full price of those crimes are set to be released from prison prematurely. Frankly, I can understand why they feel that way. I would feel exactly the same myself.
If a representative of the victims were to serve on the commission—in any event I disagree with the establishment of the commission—they would at least have some assurance that their points of view would be put forward and, posthumously, the points of view of those who have been destroyed by the vicious activities of the terrorist organisations. I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I make a sincere plea to the Government that they accept the amendment. I support the amendment because I believe that it would raise the

965
credibility of the deliberations of the sentence review commissioners and because I believe that it would help the healing process which is so important in the context of making the overall peace process work. I recognise the problems of choosing one person to represent the victims, but I do not believe that the late Gordon Wilson was unique in his humanity, forgiveness, wisdom and breadth of vision.
Lord Kilbracken: Can the Minister give any indication of how many commissioners there will be and whether their decisions will have to be unanimous or based on a majority of their opinions?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. I cannot find anything against it in the agreement. Obviously, as has been said, it is a healing and a humanitarian measure. I respectfully suggest that it would only help the implementation of the agreement which will be difficult in any circumstances.
Lord Dunleath: I, too, from Northern Ireland support the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Molyneaux. To support what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has just said, I have with me a copy of the agreement which, in Strand 3, under the heading "Reconciliation and Victims of Violence" states in paragraph 12:
"It is recognised that victims have a right to remember as well as to contribute to a changed society".
I believe that as a commissioner a victim would make an enormous contribution.
Finally, as to where a representative of victims is to be found, I suggest that Sir Kenneth Bloomfield and the Northern Ireland Victims' Commission is an ideal place to start.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I too support this amendment. All noble Lords had victims very much in mind during Second Reading. Many of the speeches reflected that. We have had them particularly in mind since the publication of the excellent report by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. In one sense everyone in Northern Ireland is a victim. The whole Province has been the victim of terrorism for a long period, but there are some who are victims because of what has happened to them or to those close to them. Obviously, that is what one has in mind in considering this amendment.
I hope that at all times the commissioners, in making their decisions, will act with the victims in mind, both victims in general and the victims in each particular case that they consider. The crimes that the commissioners consider will be a guide as to whether or not those who committed them are likely to revert to terrorism. In paragraph 3 of the agreement the section on prisoners states that account will be taken of the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted. That is in the agreement. The agreement takes account of the crimes committed and hence the victims of those crimes committed by the prisoners in question.
966
I hope that the Government will agree to this amendment. If the Minister is unable to agree to it straight away, perhaps he will think about it most carefully between now and Report stage.
Lord Dubs: I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and other noble Lords. The Committee is right to draw attention to the importance of giving consideration to those who have been the victims of terrorist crime.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that I do not agree for one moment that the Bill is intended to appease republican opinion. The Bill is intended to give effect to an agreement which was supported by political parties across the spectrum in Northern Ireland, not just republicans. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, also suggested that the Government had not said enough about their concerns for and their wish to do more for victims. I do not believe that that is an accurate reflection of either my position or that of the Government. I remind the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, very helpfully pointed out, that in November 1997 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State appointed Sir Kenneth Bloomfield to report on,
"the feasibility of providing greater recognition for those who have become victims in the last 30 years as a consequence of events in Northern Ireland".
The report We Will Remember Them was published in May 1998. It will be the focus of future government help for victims and their loved ones, and will inform the allocation of the £5 million promised by the Prime Minister to support victims and their families.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has appointed the Minister of State, Adam Ingram, as Minister for Victims and has also established a victims liaison unit within the Northern Ireland Office to develop policy and implement the recommendations of Sir Kenneth's report. Last Tuesday my honourable friend the Minister of State announced the first package of measures, which included £700,000 to establish a new trauma centre for young people and their families who have been affected by the troubles, and a £200,000 fund to be established immediately for community groups and voluntary organisations to take forward recommendations in the Bloomfield Report. A major consultation exercise will inform further action. These are positive measures and the Government are committed to building on them to meet the needs of victims.
I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. The effect of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to appoint as a commissioner someone who,
"is representative of the victims of terrorist crime associated with Northern Ireland".
Although many victims and their relatives will be concerned about the release of prisoners under this measure and the Bill gives recognition to that concern through the provisions for victim notification, that does not mean that victims or their representatives should be given a direct role in deciding who should be released. The Bill does not require that victims' views should be

967
taken into account by the commissioners in deciding whether a prisoner should receive a declaration. In that respect I note that the noble Lord who spoke to the amendment did not say that it should impose such a requirement. The commissioners are required to apply the conditions referred to in Clause 3 and no others. As such, there is no specialist expertise that a victims' representative would bring to the process. This is not to say that the Secretary of State could not or should not appoint to the body someone who might be considered to be representative of victims; only that there is no reason to make it a requirement under the legislation. I believe that that is the nub of the argument.
I deal with two or three specific points. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, requested that a Bill that had recently been published in Dublin should be made available. I shall do my best to see what can be done in time for Report stage. Under this Bill the number of commissioners will be 10. For their normal work they will be arranged in panels of three, but decisions by commissioners will be made by a majority.
I am aware of the sensitivity of any issue to do with victims. Many people in Northern Ireland are victims and have suffered enormously over the past 25 years. But it is my view that many victim groups do not necessarily want a specific role in deciding on releases under the Bill. They are probably far more concerned that their own needs should be addressed. The Government have already gone some way in endeavouring to do that. Some victims do support the agreement; perhaps others do not. There is no unanimity of view among victims. There is nothing between us except whether this should be the subject of a specific requirement in legislation. I am prepared to consider further what the Committee has said in the course of this debate without making any commitment.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the Minister for his last wise words. He could very easily say that, whatever the Bill might say, it would be the intention of the Secretary of State to appoint such a person. I am sure that then we could all rest entirely happy. The Minister underlined much of what was said by all those who supported the amendment when he observed that there was no requirement to consider victims under the Bill. Precisely so. That was why I thought it appropriate to amend the Bill in this way.
I am surprised that the Minister denies that the Bill seeks to appease republican opinion. We do not want to cover old ground today. However, I remind the Minister that the referendum upon which he leans so heavily took place when the IRA was fully armed and the people of Northern Ireland were told that if they did not vote "Yes" there was little doubt that the IRA would again use its arms. I have my worries about that.
I remind the noble Lord that when I asked him whether Her Majesty's Government accepted any
968
obligation to ensure impartiality in the conduct of the Northern Ireland referendum he observed:
"I can comment only on the position of the Government … We wanted to see, and were pleased that there was, a yes vote, but we took the position throughout the campaign that how people chose to vote on 22nd May was entirely a matter for them".—[Official Report, 5/6/98; col. WA 57.]
We would be naive wholly to believe that, especially when the noble Lord also confirmed that the Secretary of State had granted temporary release to four prisoners to attend the Sinn Fein conference and acknowledged that that was a matter of concern and hurt to many members of the public.
The Minister informed me that the Secretary of State had said that such releases would not be granted for such purposes in the future. So it was all right to say that the Government were impartial; and all right for them to release people from prison to campaign for a yes vote. But no one was released from prison to campaign for a no vote, or, indeed, no help was given to those campaigning for a no vote. Nor do I think that talk of £5 million in that context as washing away the Government's responsibilities towards victims is adequate. The victims are not to be bought with £5 million. The Minister may shake his head, but many people would be extremely hurt that in a discussion of whether one of the commissioners should be representative of the victims, the Minister should introduce the question of £5 million that was going to be paid out to help them in some way or another.
I should find the suggestion that there are so many victims that it would be difficult to find anyone to represent them laughable, if it were not tragic. I take some encouragement from what the Minister said at the end of his speech. Therefore I am content to withdraw the amendment so that we can return to it on Report when the Minister might have something more positive to say about the Government's intentions, even if nothing more positive to say about the possibility of putting that into legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Applications]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("for") to ("life") in line 5.
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20 and 27. Clause 3 is an important clause. It deals with the eligibility for release of individual prisoners, and sets out the criteria involved. The criteria include four conditions, three of which apply to fixed sentenced prisoners and a fourth condition which applies, with the other three, to life sentence prisoners alone. It is the fourth condition which is the subject of the amendments.
The fourth condition is that if the prisoner were released immediately he would not be a danger to the public. As I say, that applies to life sentence prisoners only. Even if it were the opinion of the commissioners that a prisoner serving a fixed term would be a danger to the public he would, nevertheless, be released if the

969
other conditions were fulfilled. I find that an extraordinary proposition. I found it odd that a similar amendment was not accepted when it was moved in another place.
In the debate in another place, the Minister of State advanced as a reason for not accepting the amendment that prisoners on fixed sentences were, in the normal course of things, released at the end of the term of their sentence, whatever that may be, which had been fixed by the judge with the appropriate rules for remission and so on. They are released at the end of the term of their sentence whether or not they were regarded as a risk. No judgment is made at the end of the fixed sentence as to whether there is a risk. He therefore regarded that amendment as a significant new concept in the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland. The Minister said rather the same in response to that point being made briefly in this place on Second Reading.
However, the whole Bill is a significant new concept in the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland. In any case, there is to be an assessment of risk for those serving fixed term as well as for those serving life under the third condition:
"if the prisoner were released immediately, he would not be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation, or to become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
That is to say, that even for lifers the risk of committing terrorist offences is to be assessed and is to form part of the decision leading up to or—not, as the case may be—the release of the individual prisoner.
In that sense, the principle of the amendment is conceded so far as concerns terrorist crimes. All the amendment does is extend that principle to crimes that are not regarded as terrorist crimes under the Bill. If a fixed sentence prisoner was thought likely to return to violent crime, but not a terrorist crime, he would still be released early. There would, as I see it in the Bill as it stands, be no legal way to stop that. That is not desirable. It is not that novel a principle, given the context of the Bill as a whole.
We may be told that all that has been drafted in the Bill was set out in the paper Prisoners and the Political Settlement. I referred briefly in some earlier remarks to that paper, which was placed in the Library of the House by the Minister at the time of the agreement. But I am not clear as to what is the exact position of that paper. I take it to be an expression of the Government's view on how they would implement the agreement, which was made available to those negotiating the agreement, and hence it can be thought of in some sense as an embodiment, at least so far as concerns prisoners, of the spirit of the agreement. It is not of course part of the agreement itself.
The agreement itself is clearer on that point. In paragraph 3 on page 25 in the section on prisoners it says that account will be taken of the seriousness of the offences of which the person was convicted and the need to protect the community. It seems to me therefore that it is well within the terms of the agreement itself that the community should be protected from a fixed sentence prisoner who otherwise might be thought liable to go back to violent crime of some kind on his release.
It seems to me that in that respect the Government have not implemented in the Bill the full terms of the agreement, or the section on prisoners. This gives me the opportunity to make it clear once again that we on this side accept the whole of the agreement—the words of the agreement and its spirit. Nothing that I have said before, and nothing that I intend to say, should be outside the terms of the written agreement—if I can manage it, as I read it, at any rate—and I hope that nothing will be outside the spirit of the agreement. Judging by the Minister's remarks on Second Reading, and his colleague's remarks in another place, in this case the amendment is nearer to the words of the agreement than the Bill itself. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It seems to be a totally reasonable amendment, from reading the agreement. What has happened? Why have the Government moved away from the simple concepts in paragraph 3 on prisoners and embarked upon this complicated exercise? There must be some reason for it. Before making up my mind, I should like to know what the reason was and why the agreement, as it stands, is not good enough.
The Earl of Longford: I had hoped that the Minister would speak earlier. My attitude to this and other amendments will depend on what my noble friend, with the authority of his office and expert knowledge, tells us. As I have said previously, this agreement is the best thing that has happened to Northern Ireland in my lifetime. I have the utmost confidence in all those concerned. I would not put my judgment as regards what is within or outside the agreement against theirs.
I shall wait to hear what the Minister says. If my noble friend says that the provision is outside the agreement, I am against it.
Lord Dubs: Amendments that would have the same effect as these were put down and debated in another place. At that time the Government gave reasons why those amendments would not be accepted.
As was explained in another place, there are good reasons for drawing a distinction between determinate sentences and life sentences. A life sentence is imposed automatically as the mandatory sentence for murder. It may also be imposed at the discretion of the court for other very serious offences. In these discretionary cases, the life sentence is likely to have been imposed precisely because the court considered that the risk of further serious offences being committed was an issue. It is therefore entirely proper that in such cases the commissioners should take account of any risk of danger to the public.
However, the same principles and rules do not apply to fixed term prisoners. Under the law in Northern Ireland such prisoners are released automatically after

971
they have served the required portion of their sentence. The release of fixed term prisoners is not dependent on a favourable assessment of risk.
I can understand that because of the new release arrangements introduced by this Bill many would consider that additional protections are required before release may be considered. But I believe that the other criteria which determinate sentence prisoners must satisfy are extremely robust and are appropriate for prisoners who have not been given life sentences by the courts.
It also remains the case that a fixed term prisoner may not be released if the commissioners consider that he is likely to become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. This means that every applicant must be assessed to determine whether he would be likely to re-engage in terrorism or acts related to it.
I shall now deal with the amendment that would extend the licence conditions for fixed term prisoners to include risk. With the exception of some sex offenders, prisoners serving fixed sentences for non-terrorist offences who are released in Northern Ireland are not subject to any licence conditions. If they commit further offences they are simply dealt with in the normal way and sentenced for the further offence. For cases that fall under the Treatment of Offenders Order 1976 a prisoner may be subject to a further penalty in respect of an offence committed after discharge from prison.
Under this Bill, which is primarily to do with terrorism and terrorists, a fixed term prisoner will be subject to licence conditions which allow his recall and return to prison if he becomes or is likely to become re-involved in acts of terrorism after release. This addresses the key concern regarding those released under this Bill that they should not be allowed to remain at large if they are likely to be involved in further acts of terrorism. As such, the Bill makes provision for the risk of involvement in further acts of terrorism.
In addition, to include such a condition goes beyond the terms of the paper placed in the Library by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 20th April to which some noble Lords referred. That paper made clear that life sentence prisoners would be subject to a risk criteria and by implication suggested that other prisoners would not. Although that paper is not part of the agreement, it was made available to the parties in the course of the discussions that led to the agreement as an explanation of what the Government would be prepared to do to implement those parts of the agreement relating to prisoners. As such the Government consider that they should not depart from the terms of that paper at this time and that to do so would undermine confidence in the Government's commitment to making all parts of the agreement a reality, as was helpfully said by my noble friend Lord Longford.
Also, to include such a provision could give difficulty with the coherence of the Bill. As fixed term prisoners do not have to pass a risk test to be released, to impose
972
such a condition as part of the licence could lead to the sort of problem outlined in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State. He explained:
"A prisoner could have his licence suspended by the Secretary of State and revoked by the commissioners on the grounds that he was, or was likely to become, a danger to the public. The prisoner could then apply to the commissioners for a declaration under clause 3. They would have to consider the prisoner for release against the conditions set out in clause 3 and, if those were met, make a further declaration in his favour … a state of affairs in which a prisoner could be recalled to prison for breaching his licence conditions but released again because he meets the criteria in clause 3 would be unsatisfactory, in particular as the prisoner in question would not have committed a further criminal offence".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/98; col. 1440.]
I hope that I have explained the reasons for the Government's position. I hope, therefore, that the amendment will not be pressed further.
Lord Monson: If a prisoner is sentenced to a fixed term of 25 years in prison for a serious terrorist offence—we can all think of a recent case—and is released in consequence of the Bill after two years instead of 16 years and eight months, as would normally be the case, is there not a serious danger that he might reoffend?
Lord Dubs: First, I do not wish to comment on particular cases. However, if someone has been given a 25 year sentence, the court has presumably taken a view as to the likelihood of reoffending; and that view influenced the court into giving a fixed term decision rather than a life sentence. It is on that basis that the distinction in the Bill continues. If the court had believed that there was a grave risk of that individual reoffending, the court would surely have imposed a life sentence.
Lord Tebbit: I hope that we shall all remember to keep our copies of the Official Report of the debate because I think that the Minister's words may come back to haunt him.
I have to remind the noble Lord that the people it is proposed to let out of prison are not all first time offenders. A number of them have served sentences and have been suitably released, under the provisions of the Northern Irish jurisdiction, and the different and easier rules from those on the mainland which have been in place there for some time, and have been rearrested and reconvicted for committing new terrorist acts. So the Minister must be extraordinarily confident that as a result of this agreement there will be a change of heart on the part of men who have had no change of heart previously and have not been reformed in any way by their time in prison. Indeed, the latter is hardly surprising since most of their time in prison will have been spent in receiving instruction in the ways of terrorism from their camp commanders, as they refer to them.
The Earl of Longford: Is the noble Lord telling us that the amendment is or is not consistent with the agreement?
Lord Tebbit: I am not entering into that discussion at this moment. There are those who will maintain that it is; and those who will maintain that it is not.

973
I am saying that the Minister must be extremely confident of himself. I should also like to tempt him briefly. Of course he cannot see ahead as to how the review board will operate and what conclusions it will reach. But does the noble Lord believe that those who signed up to the agreement expect that most, some, all, or nearly all of the members of their terrorist group will get out? It will be intriguing to know. Will these commissioners, review board members—whatever we call them—rubber stamp? Or can we expect that in many cases they will consider a man's record and say, "No, this man is too dangerous to let out, whatever expectations were aroused by the agreement"?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister responded earlier with words that had probably been prepared before he heard the debate. He did not address the points which I and others made. Part of the argument was whether the amendment is consistent with the agreement. The Minister did not argue that it was consistent with the agreement; he said that it was consistent with the paper that was issued and placed in the Library, rather than the agreement.
My noble friend and I drew attention to the fact that the agreement specifically said that the review process would provide for the need to protect the community. In each case it appears that it should do so. I cannot see where the Bill does that in respect of fixed-sentence prisoners.
The Minister also spoke of the coherence of the Bill being damaged by these amendments. I do not agree. He said that there was a no-risk test for those serving determinate sentences. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, there is a risk test as regards terrorist crimes. That is the third condition which the commissioners must address. There is a risk test as far as terrorist crimes are concerned. The Minister referred to it. It is true that in the Bill as it stands there is not a risk test in relation to crimes other than terrorist crimes. The point of the amendment is to insert such a risk test.
Is the Minister prepared to say that determinate sentence prisoners should be released earlier than the trial judge thought was the right sentence for their crimes, even if they would be a danger to the public?
4 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I can only repeat what I said. For those prisoners released under the terms of the Bill, a condition of the licence will be that they do not re-engage in, or are not likely to re-engage in, the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The licence conditions are surely one of the key safeguards that the noble Lord sought to establish.
We do not need the additional safeguard as regards the risk element to which he referred as the basis for his amendments. There are sufficient safeguards. Of course no one can predict what will happen in the case of every single prisoner released. I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the figures I gave the House on Second Reading in relation to the number of prisoners that had been released. I speak from memory, but of the several hundred prisoners released in recent years, only two
974
have been reconvicted of terrorist offences. That does not prove that that will be the case in the future, but it indicates that the process has not resulted in prisoners reoffending and that the conditions of the licence would seem to be a safeguard.
The argument that was advanced in the other place and which I advanced both at Second Reading and today is not one that I will live to regret.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: Perhaps the reason that prisoners who have reoffended have not been caught is because extradition is not working. On Second Reading the Minister said that those of us who considered that to be a possibility were cynical. I have looked at the figures. In the past 20 years, 67 prisoners have been sought for terrorist offences; 20 have been arrested in the south but only six extradited. It may well be that the Minister's figures are confused by these facts.
Lord Dubs: I do not have any figures on extradition. I take the noble Baroness's figures as being accurate. I am not sure what that has to do with prisoners being released under licence—unless the noble Baroness is assuming that every prisoner released under this Bill will then move into the republic. I do not follow her argument.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I am sorry, I am confusing the Minister. My point is that these prisoners have not been caught and we do not know whether they are reoffending.
Lord Dubs: That is right. We cannot know in all instances. We can know only of those who have been convicted since release, not those who have not. It may be that some have left Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that many prisoners have been released over recent years, both under his government and in the past year. I was not aware that the particular concerns he has expressed today were ones that he has applied to the programme of releases over the years. If that is so, his comments escaped me. The Bill lays down provisions for an accelerated release programme, but it is essentially a continuation of the policies that have been followed by both Governments for some years.
Lord Desai: I am not a lawyer but the amendment argues, not whether people who are released will reoffend—none of us can predict anything about that—but that we should not make a distinction between those with a life sentence and those with a fixed-term sentence. I have heard no argument that we should not make a distinction. Normally when judges impose a life sentence they take very seriously the distinction between a life sentence and a fixed-term sentence. On what ground is the noble Lord arguing that we should eliminate the distinction? Is it that everybody is very dangerous, whether a life-termer or a fixed-termer? The argument has always been that a life-termer is a different case. I would have expected the noble Lord to

975
have made a big thing about having life imprisonment as a separate and a hard category. Now we are told that we have to obliterate that distinction. Either way, the possibility of reoffending is not at issue—that is not predictable by us or anybody else—but the distinction between life and fixed term is still worth making.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord, Lord Desai, says that the prediction as to whether or not people reoffend cannot be made, but that is what risk assessment is. The commissioners are obliged to make that judgment—difficult though it is—in respect of both types of prisoner with regard to terrorist crime. They are also obliged to make that judgment with regard to lifers and to all crime.
As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, now that, under the Bill, we are proposing to release people earlier than the judge thought was necessary for their crimes, regard should also be had as to whether they will be a danger to the public, as stated in the agreement.
The Minister relied on the licence conditions. That is what Amendment No. 27 goes to. It makes the same point in respect of the licence conditions as Amendment No. 3 makes in respect of the main release condition. It also makes the distinction between fixed-sentence prisoners and the life prisoner. The case is slightly different in relation to licence conditions, but it does not make it any better that a determinate sentence prisoner should be released when he is regarded as a danger to the public for ordinary crime. He is being released on licence only provided that he does not commit terrorist crime. It seems to me that that fourth condition should apply to both types of prisoner. But the Minister seems determined to try to stick to the opinion expressed by his right honourable friend in another place and, indeed, by himself. In that case, I must press the amendment.
Lord Tebbit: Before we reach that stage, I believe that the Minister could clear up this matter quite quickly if he really wanted to. Is he saying that regardless of what it says in the Bill, the board's review members will never release anyone who is a danger to the public, or is he saying just that they will not consider, before releasing a fixed-term prisoner, whether he will be a danger to the public? That is an interesting distinction.
Lord Dubs: I do not see that the members of the board can do more than act on what they consider to be the case.
Lord Tebbit: With respect to the Minister, that is not quite the question. As my noble friend Lord Cope said, the fourth condition that the prisoner would not be a danger to the public is attached only to lifers. Does that give an instruction to those who are considering the release of fixed-term prisoners that they should not take into account whether or not the individual who is the subject of their consideration would be a danger to the public? Indeed, is he saying that even if they were of the view that he would be a danger to the public they
976
should still release him because they have no powers on that ground to keep him in gaol if he is a fixed termer? If he were a lifer, of course, they could.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure that I can add very much to what I said earlier. After all—and I am repeating myself—the commissioners will note what sentence was imposed by the court and will reflect upon the fact that the court had a good reason for drawing a distinction between a determinate and indeterminate sentence. It is on that basis that the Bill has been constructed.
Lord Tebbit: The judge would have had a good reason for sentencing a man to 25 years imprisonment. This Bill provides that he must be released after as little as two years.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure that we shall achieve anything more from this dialogue. The Bill refers to people being released at the end of a two-year period and although there are certain safeguards and conditions, that would apply to both life sentence prisoners and determinate sentence prisoners.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I wish to press this matter to a Division.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 171.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Harmsworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Higgins, L.

Arran, E.

Holderness, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Beloff, L.

Leigh, L.

Biffen, L.

Lowry, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

McConnell, L.

Brightman, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Marsh, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Carew, L.

Milverton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Chesham, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Moran, L.

Courtown, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Moyne, L.

Davidson, V.

Naseby, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Norrie, L.

Dunleath, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Erne, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Foley, L.

Palmer, L.

Fookes, B.

Pender, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rathcavan, L.

977

Renwick, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rowallan, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Vivian, L.

Weatherill, L.

Skelmersdale, L

Wedgwood, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wilcox, B.

Strafford, E.

Wise, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hattersley, L.

Addington, L.

Hayman, B.

Alderdice, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Attenborough, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Avebury, L.

Hooson, L.

Barnett, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Borrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Islwyn, L.

Burlison, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Calverley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Carlisle, E.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Chandos, V.

Kirkwood, L.

Chorley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Levy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Longford, E.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Desai, L.

McNair, L.

Dholakia, L.

McNally, L.

Diamond, L.

Maddock, B.

Dixon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Donoughue, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Meston, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ezra, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gilbert, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Newby, L.

Glasgow, E.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Glenamara, L.

Ogmore, L.

Goodhart, L.

Orme, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Parry, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Paul, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grenfell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grey, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hamwee, B.

Puttnam, L.

Hardie, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Haskel, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

978

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Taverne, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Russell, E.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Thurso, V.

Sandberg, L.

Tope, L.

Scanlon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sefton of Garston, L

Varley, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sewel, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Whaddon, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Whitty, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Wigoder, L.

Simon, V.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Winston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we move on to deal with the Statement on child support, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on Statements should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. If noble Lords speak at length, they will do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Child Support
4.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with your permission, I will make a Statement on the Government's Green Paper on reform of the child support system. We promised to reform the welfare state so that it is modern and fair and strikes the right balance between rights and responsibilities—reform on the basis of work for those who can and security for those who cannot. We want work for parents and security for their children.
"Children are first and foremost the responsibility of their parents. But we have a responsibility as a government to ensure that parents are in a position to support them—that they are working if they can—and

979
that children get the support that they need. That is why as a government we place so much emphasis on policies for families. We have increased child benefit for all families. We have embarked on a major welfare-to-work programme to ensure that mothers and fathers can work and improve their children's standard of living. The new deal for lone mothers will ensure that mothers work if they can. The new deal for the long-term unemployed and the young unemployed will mean that fathers, many for the first time, can support their children through work. These new deals, together with the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, are important parts of banishing child poverty.
"So welfare-to-work, the first part of our welfare reform, is under way. The second step in welfare reform—to ensure that children are properly supported by their non-resident father—is what I bring to the House today. The child support system is like no other part of the social security system. In most of the benefit system there are just two stakeholders—the benefit recipient and the taxpayer. In child support there are four: the child, who needs an adequate standard of living and is entitled to the father's support; the father, who has a responsibility to support the child and needs enough left to live on and to discharge his other responsibilities; the taxpayers, who need both to support their own children and to contribute through their taxes to prevent other people's children living in poverty; and the mother, who needs a dependable source of income for her family.
"Getting the system right and fair for all four is not an easy task. Few would seriously disagree with those objectives of child support. Most agree that the current system is not working to deliver them. In identifying the need for reform, I seek to make no party political criticism of the previous government. We are all wiser with the benefit of hindsight. Nor will I dwell for too long on the statistics which show the failings of the child support system, except to remind the House that there are 1.8 million children living in families on income support or family credit in respect of whom fathers pay no maintenance at all. One in six of all children in this country are being brought up supported only by their mothers working or, more usually, the benefits system.
"What sort of message does it send to boys who will one day themselves become fathers when they see that the financial responsibilities of fatherhood can be wholly delegated—either to the welfare state or to the mother alone? Seventy per cent. of lone mothers claiming income support now seek to avoid co-operating with the Child Support Agency. Their co-operation takes their time and energy, can cause further conflict with the child's father and, if they are not working, brings no financial gain to their children as all of the maintenance paid by the father is deducted from their benefit.
"The formula for assessing maintenance is so complicated that the CSA has to spend 90 per cent. of its time assessing maintenance or keeping assessments
980
up to date and is left with only 10 per cent. of its time to chase up payments. The complexity of the formula means that fathers do not know where they stand, and often the first demand for maintenance tells them that they are already thousands of pounds in arrears; and complexity leads to errors.
"So our reform of child support involves replacing the byzantine complexity of the current formula with a simple percentage. To assess maintenance will no longer require over 100 bits of information. It will no longer require fathers to report their new partner's income. It will not be necessary to assess the mother's new partner's income. It relies only on identifying the number of children the father has, where the children live and how much income he has after deduction of tax and national insurance.
"We propose that for one child 15 per cent. is deducted from the father's net income and paid in maintenance, for two children 20 per cent., and for three or more children 25 per cent. There will be special rules for fathers with a low income. For fathers who are on benefit or whose net income is below £100 we propose maintenance of £5 a week, with a sliding scale for those between £100 and £200.
"In assessing the amount of maintenance we propose taking into account children in a second family. Our Green Paper sets out for consultation two different options for reaching the right balance between the children in the first and second families. But both of these options are about taking second families into account.
"Moving from a complex formula to a simple percentage will have a number of advantages. Men who father a child with a woman with whom they are not living will know that they will have to pay 15 per cent. of their weekly income to that child for the next 16 years at least. Men who separate from their wife and children will know, before they take on other commitments, what they will have to put on one side for their children. The CSA will be able to spend dramatically less time assessing maintenance and spend more time ensuring it is paid. Everyone will understand the system. The aim is to ensure more fathers pay rather than that fathers pay more.
"But there is also the question of what the children receive when the fathers pay. Almost from the outset there has been complaint because for every pound paid in maintenance by the father a pound is deducted from the mother's income support. For mothers who are not working, this means that while co-operation with the Child Support Agency can mean maintenance is paid by the father, no maintenance is received by the child. For fathers who do not pay, they can feel that they are simply defying the CSA rather than disadvantaging their own children.
"We are proposing to change this. The child will in future receive a child maintenance premium. The first £10 of maintenance paid will go to the mother for the child and will not be deducted from her benefit. So when a father pays he will know that he is fulfilling his responsibilities and his child is better

981
off. When a mother on income support co-operates with the CSA, she will ensure he is paying his fair share and the child gets up to £10 more a week.
"As well as a simple percentage we need a better child support service. We propose a three-stage process. First, when the mother applies for maintenance, the father will be contacted and in most cases an assessment can be made over the phone. He can start paying right away. Secondly, if either parent has concerns about the assessment, there will be a review where the situation can be explained or sorted out. Thirdly, if either parent wants to challenge the basis of the assessment—for example, the calculation of income—their case will be assessed by an independent tribunal. We also propose that the tribunal should be able to set maintenance at a different percentage rate if the non-resident parent can show that he has special expenses incurred in supporting the child; for example, where the cost of paying the maintenance will make him unable to afford the costs of visiting the child.
"Though we propose these reforms, there will need to be time to consult, to take legislation through the House and then to change the computer systems. But people currently in the system cannot wait that long to see progress. We need to do what we can within the existing system to make it work better for them. We therefore intend to press forward with the introduction of more phone lines and service outside normal working hours. We will be taking further action to tackle the backlog. We will be spending an extra £12 million this year, in addition to the £30 million already committed over the next two years, to sharpen up our service.
"The CSA staff have borne much of the brunt of the complexity and unpopularity of the system. Much of the criticism that should have been directed at the system has been heaped on them, usually unfairly. But we are counting on them, and I know we can do so, to improve the current system and then make a first-class job of the new system. This is a Green Paper. Its proposals are for consultation until the end of November this year. We hope there will be the widest possible debate. For fathers, mothers and the taxpayer all to feel that the system is fair is not an easy task. The need for reform is obvious. The demand for reform has been voiced in hours of debate in this House, hundreds of pages of official reports and thousands of letters of public complaints. I believe that we have charted a new way forward.
"But I will conclude with a word of caution. Relations between men and women are not always easy. Relations between men and women where they are parents of the same child but do not share the same home are often intensely difficult. No reform of the child support system can ever change that. But it can work better than it does now and it can better serve those children who have a right to the support of both their parents, irrespective of where they live. It is above all for them that I present this Green Paper to the House today."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, first, I express our thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I do so with particular enthusiasm because I have the impression that much of the intensive work on this subject has fallen on the shoulders of the noble Baroness. Indeed the style that is adopted perhaps reflects that. I certainly hope to engage with her in a sympathetic and constructive dialogue on the basis of the Green Paper.
Before I do so there is one point I ought to make. It would not have been unreasonable for the noble Baroness to have said this afternoon, "Have I got news for you?" The reality is that almost all of the content of the Green Paper has been leaked steadily in the press for many weeks. That is particularly unfortunate. Recently the tendency of the Government to leak information has been accelerating. It has increased from the occasional unfortunate lapse to something approaching a nasty habit. That is to the advantage of the spin doctors whom we now suffer from so much. It gives them the chance either to put a gloss on something which is good news, or, if it is bad news, to say, "That is something which was dealt with days ago. It is old news and therefore do not bother about it" when it is actually dealt with on the Floor of Parliament. I hope therefore that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will feel it appropriate to join with Madam Speaker in saying that this is something we need to take into account.
Having said that, I greet with some enthusiasm what the Minister said. Indeed I greet it with some passion. I do not think that anyone who has been a Member of Parliament since 1991 when the original legislation was passed can do so other than with passion. I spent hundreds of hours on individual cases and had endless interview nights and so on. In the light of what was mentioned at the end of the Statement, I witnessed more bitterness between people in these circumstances than in any other constituency cases.
This will not be an easy task. Indeed, it is right that it should be dealt with on an all-party basis because part of the present structure reflects the proposals made by the present Minister for Welfare Reform when he was chairman of the Social Security Committee in another place. Those ideas have been incorporated but, as has been rightly pointed out, there is still much to be done.
I do not think the answer is in any way to return the matter to the courts. Much of the original problem arose because the courts tended to reach decisions on the assumption that the costs of the children would be borne by the taxpayer in the form of one benefit or another. That is not satisfactory. We must do what we can to improve the present situation. That is particularly difficult because in many cases the parents of the child are not married and therefore their legal status is somewhat different from those who are.
It has been suggested that under the new arrangements something like one-third of lone parents will lose, and only two-thirds will gain. Is that statement correct? I am not sure whether it is lone parents on the one hand or parents with care. Will the Minister give us

983
some idea as to what the balance will be between those who gain and those who lose under the new arrangements? That will be extremely relevant in considering the extent to which the changed system is to operate effectively, particularly in what may be a very difficult transitional period.
The problem with the original proposal was that it was made retrospective. In a sense the same is being done, although, as the Minister pointed out, the Government propose measures to attempt to deal with that problem. There will be significant transitional problems. Clearly the extent to which the changes are acceptable to individuals—especially those who do not wish to pay anything at all for their children—will depend very much on whether they gain or lose in the transition from one scheme to another.
What will the situation be so far as arrears are concerned? As I understand it, there are presently some £1.4 billion of arrears. Are those to be carried forward to the new system? I understand that it covers both full and temporary assessments, but, clearly, we need to know what will happen. In particular, do the Government propose to collect all the arrears that are outstanding under the old system before changing to the new one?
The Government propose to change the present complex formula to a simple percentage. It is very much a question of rough justice. Although there are proposals for appeals against assessments under the new system, one cannot but help be concerned that the burden falling on the tribunals may build up rapidly as more and more people, often determined not to pay at all, seek to dispute even the simplest formula.
The Minister rightly said that the position of second families will be taken into account. That has been much of the problem in practice. Generally speaking, the second family has always been better off, because the father concerned has been promoted and so on. Much of the bitterness has come from the second family not wishing to see money transferred back to the first. It would be helpful to learn more at this early stage about the position of the second family.
I turn to the question of the proposed extra £10, although "extra" is perhaps a misnomer. In many cases, there is a genuine problem in identifying the parent. It is suggested that under the present system a parent will not do so if, for example, she is likely to suffer violence as a result. Apart from the obvious benefit that the child will receive something from the deal, is the extra £10 intended as some kind of incentive to identification? What are the Government's proposals regarding identification?
On a broader point, what will be the overall cost, taking the entire arrangement into account: the cost of the extra £10, of running two systems side by side and so on? Will the Minister give us some idea?
Finally, again I stress that we shall be happy to co-operate with the Secretary of State in another place and the Minister here so far as this matter is concerned. However, there is a real danger that further complexity will be piled on existing complexities. In Australia,
984
where a similar simplified system has been introduced, the burden falling on tribunals has been very great indeed.
There is now an enormous burden in changing from a system that has been complicated to the new system. Apparently there is to be movement from one to the other. Two alternative methods are suggested. I hope the Minister will recognise that the transition is likely to be extremely difficult. We must hope that, nonetheless, the changes introduced will finally result in absent parents contributing more to their children. I hope that that will be the case. Broadly speaking, the Statement is to be welcomed, but it has considerable difficulties and dangers ahead of it.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am human. I know one is not supposed to say, "I told you so". I hope that the House will forgive me if I say it just once and then get down to business.
That said, I congratulate the noble Baroness the Minister on producing this Statement. Admitting error is one of the most difficult things to do in all politics. She has put herself into the company of great parliamentarians such as the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. She has done herself great credit.
This is the second measure that I have seen through from Second Reading to repeal. It is the first that I have seen through from White Paper to repeal while still remaining in the same brief. I remind myself a little of the character in the 18th century epitaph:
"Here lies Will Smith
And, what's something rarish,
He was born, bred and hanged
All in the same parish".
I wish to associate myself with some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the advance release of the Statement. It meant that the comment made did not relate to the whole Statement. It was made on those features of the Statement to which the Government or their advisers chose to draw attention. The independent tribunal, which is to me by far the most interesting feature in the Statement, was not even mentioned. If we look at the history of previous legislation we see that the advice of Members of this House was far more valuable where it was listened to than the advice of almost anyone else who spoke. I was slow on the uptake, but my noble friend Lord Meston and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, both of whom are present, spotted what was wrong from the beginning in 1991. If the comments had been made in Parliament, put into the context of the whole Statement from the beginning, we should have got on a little faster.
There are features in the Statement with which I am delighted. I am delighted at the prospect of less inaccuracy; less delay; less chaos; less forcing people inside the agency to do what they cannot do. I am particularly delighted by the introduction of the disregard, for which the Minister and I have many times argued together. That is a great victory on her part. I should be grateful if she would explain in a little more detail exactly how it will work. Perhaps she would

985
explain the phrase, "up to £10", and exactly how that proposal will interact with the problem of poverty traps. It is a detailed and difficult problem in which I know the Minister is interested, and in which she is expert.
I congratulate the Minister, too, on the recognition that there are some women who need to avoid contact. That needs constant protection. As recently as the night before last, I was listening to a close family friend describing the experience of one of her undergraduate contemporaries, who was not told that she had a right to refuse to sign the form because of good cause, which ended with the man who had committed domestic violence against her discovering where she lived. Many times I have received assurances from Ministers of all complexions—who meant it, and did everything they could to bring it about—that that would not happen again. It still does. I hope that the noble Baroness can in future make sure that it does not.
The Government have not spotted the key principle of error. They think they can make the thing work by simplifying it. That reminds me a little of Ministers in the previous government saying that the poll tax would have worked if only local authorities had not been so extravagant. That is not what is needed.
As soon as one brings in a formula, however simple, one is on a fork. Either the formula is set too high and one increases the number of men who cannot pay without having to give up work; or it is set too low and many women do not receive as much money as they should. In any attempt to use the formula, there is no way off that fork; one must be impaled on one prong or the other.
That is why I find the independent tribunal, which can deal with exceptional cases, one of the most interesting features in the Statement. It takes account of the point made by Ann Chant that the agency has been constantly asked to engage in conflict resolution, which it has no authority to do. This proposal will take account of that. However, I am a little worried by the tightness of the wording, "certain exceptional circumstances", which, if I understand it right, are in danger of being spelled out, regulation piddler fashion, one by one. We shall not even begin to get started unless those exceptions include some other reason why, a case that none of us has ever foreseen. I will not detain the House—I know the Minister knows the cases; they are on her desk—by recounting some of the matters that have come before us which none of us could have foreseen in 1991 in which the formula did injustices that none of us could have imagined to be intended.
I wish to ask why it is only circumstances associated with the support of the child that are taken into account. I quite understand that those expenses are central. However, let us take someone who is supporting his aged parents, which is something the state wishes people to do. Let us take someone who is paying a legally due debt, under a court order, say. We do not want to encourage people to disobey court orders; that would be against public policy.
Ministers may say that children must come first, but people can only put them first so far as they are legally empowered to do so. If the wording remains so tight,
986
people will be under two conflicting legal obligations; and they cannot meet them both. I believe we shall therefore have to consider whether the tribunal is, as we used to argue about my Dalmatian when I was little, black with white spots or white with black spots. We shall have to consider whether it is rules with exceptions or exceptions guided by rules.
There are some very specific queries here. One is with regard to the treatment of arrears, especially in pre-1993 cases of clean-break orders, where the settlement involving the house was not taken into account. Gross injustice was done in some of those cases. I wish to know whether we shall retain anything resembling the welfare-of-the-child provision in Section 2 of the 1991 Act. I see some of those who got that on the statute book here today. If it is to be there, I wish to know how it is to be interpreted. Will the benefit penalty be enforced against women who do not co-operate? I have always said that we should have a carrot rather than a stick. The noble Baroness has provided us with a carrot, on which I congratulate her very warmly. Can she now afford to throw away the stick?
I am a little worried by the sentence in the statement to the effect that the arrangements made,
"will ensure that mothers work if they can".
Maybe I have misunderstood that. If I have, I shall be delighted, and I shall listen to the explanation. It sounded a little unfortunate.
We have had a change of government, but the court and Treasury party are still in office. They still think with the mentality of Procrustes, who used to stretch or cut people to fit them into the one bed in which he gave hospitality to travellers. He no longer cuts them to fit his bed according to hip width but only according to length. That is the great game. It does not mean that it is therefore right. There is still the urge to simplify what is, in its nature, inherently complex. There is still the urge to treat people as if they were Plasticine, to mould them into a pre-ordained shape. It will not work. Matrimonial break-up is not that simple.
We have served seven years for Leah; we have to be thankful. We must still serve seven years for Rachel. When the time comes, which of us will be speaking from which place is something on which I shall not speculate; but come it will.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there have been 20 minutes of very detailed questions. I apologise to the House, but I believe that it is important to get replies on the record to as many as I can. I hope your Lordships will be tolerant.
First, I thank both noble Lords for giving a broad, though careful, welcome to the Green Paper. I also thank them for endorsing what I hope will continue to be a non-party, inclusive and consultative approach. If the Child Support Agency has a chance for radical reform, it must be one that has robustness and staying power, because it is built on consent. I believe that that includes the consent of your Lordships' House.

987
Both noble Lords raised the point about leaks. I think I am right in saying that my right honourable friend said in the other place that she had not leaked any information. Nor had anyone with her authority. The same is true for me.
I now turn to some of the detailed points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He agrees that we should not go back to the court system. I am not sure where the noble Earl stands on that point. The failure of the court system was the reason why the Child Support Agency was introduced. Under the previous court system, for example, where couples had identical incomes and three children, in a quarter of such cases the man paid less than £15 a week and in another quarter he paid more than £40 a week. In other words, no one knew until they had been through an elaborate and costly court case what maintenance they would have to pay. For too many people it was too much of a lottery. It depended very largely on the skill of the solicitor, and the like. Costs in terms of legal aid and administration were very high. That is why the system that we now have was introduced.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, related to lone parents, 75 per cent. of them being winners and the rest losers. I am sorry if the Statement did not make the point clear. Currently 75 per cent. of lone parents are on income support. Where the former partner pays, they will gain by having 10 per cent. maintenance disregard. A further 15 per cent. are on family credit, which, by the time this piece of legislation comes into force, will probably have been transformed into working families tax credit. They will be no worse off, and, dependent on the terms of the working families tax credit, they may be better off. Ten per cent of parents only are sprung from the benefit trap or in work and choose to use the agency to collect their maintenance, but for too many the maintenance falters.
Perhaps I may share with the House some statistics. At the moment the average maintenance assessment is £38 a week. The average maintenance paid is £25 a week. Very many lone parents who are in work do not receive the maintenance assessed. Under our formula the level of maintenance to be assessed comes down from £38 to £29 per week, but we are expecting, by virtue of the simplicity of the formula, to increase compliance from 66 per cent., which it is at the moment, to 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. As a result, therefore, there will be 75 per cent. who will be winners and 10 per cent. whose position will improve or stand still when the working families tax credit comes into effect; and, of the 10 per cent. of parents who are not on benefit, very many will for the first time gain reliable maintenance. We are seeking to make more fathers pay, not to make fathers pay more. For those fathers who see the situation change dramatically between the current and future formulae, we are proposing a cash phasing-in of no more than £5 per week each year. If somebody is £10 worse off under the new formula, it will take two years for them to get on to the new system. They can therefore bring their lifestyle into line with the new formula.
988
The noble Lord raised a point in relation to arrears. There will be no amnesty. Those arrears are owed either to the parent with care or to the Government and should be paid. However, we expect the backlog of existing cases to be cleared by next April.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned "rough justice". We are saying that the only formula that will work is a simple one about which people can obtain booklets from the Post Office, the CAB, the library, their MP and so forth. On one side will be their income—their take-home pay after tax and national insurance—on the other the number of children involved and they can read across. It will only work if it is simple and people know what they are expected to pay at the point when they conceive a child and the point when the relationship breaks up.
In order to be fair (we are anxious that the formula is seen to be fair, decent and balanced), we suggest to the men that they pay less—on average from £38 to £29—and also that there is greater fairness between first and second families. To the woman and her child we say that the fairness lies in the fact that for the first time she will receive a £10 maintenance disregard. The system is fair because it is simple and therefore we believe that it will work. It is fair to men and, we hope, to women and their children. But because it is simple, it will also be enforceable and therefore firm. That is our structure.
The noble Lord pressed me about maintenance disregard. As it stands, maintenance disregard costs £80 million net or around £100 million gross. However, as we are rolling up the child maintenance bonus, which brings it to £80 million net, overall the total package cost is neutral. We only go on to the maintenance disregard when the father is paying the money. Every new father coming in will pay an average maintenance of £29; a third of that will go to the mother, two-thirds to the Treasury. The maintenance cost is paid for by the extra compliance and the total package is therefore cost neutral. As a result, we expect at the moment one-fifth of women or parents on income support to receive maintenance. We expect two-fifths of that to be cost neutral. Any improvement on that—we hope to reach three-fifths or more—will be a bonus for all concerned.
In relation to tribunals—a wider point shared also by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—we are seeking to avoid pushing the complexity of the existing formula away from the original assessment in to an appeals assessment. All that does is reinvent the complexity of the CSA. If we take into account pensions, debts, the care of an elderly relative, housing costs and travel to work, we may as well stay with the existing system and simply muddle through. We will have reinvented the complexity. For instance, there are 58 different kinds of mortgage. At the moment around 100 pieces of information are required to calculate an assessment. Every time any one of those changes, there is a right of review and appeal. The system never catches up and that is why it does not work. That is why it takes six months to obtain an assessment and that is why fathers never end up paying and mothers and children never receive the money. By simplicity, we expect to make the money

989
flow and turn a case round in between four to six weeks. Fathers will know where they stand and mothers and children will gain.
We are anxious not to reinvent the complexity of the original assessment and have it displaced into the appeals system. We are saying that the grounds for appeal to the tribunal, apart from error, are for exceptional costs in supporting the child. It is about child support. We do not want to see paying for the child through maintenance stopping the father having contact with the child through access; for instance, where a child is disabled or where the father has taken on the full cost of the mortgage of the first home.
We are not saying that we will take all the other costs cited by the noble Earl into account. Instead, we will leave the father with a much higher percentage of his income—maintenance down from £38 to £29—with which to pay all his other costs. We will not try to second-guess his priorities. We will say to him "You are an adult. We will leave you with more money.". Everybody has different responsibilities and priorities. If we try to second-guess them all and put them into a formula, we will reinvent the present CSA. We are saying, "We will leave you, oh father, with a higher percentage of your income, with due allowance for your second family, and you, as an adult, will make your own decisions as to where your priorities lie. We will not try to second-guess you and build it into the formula". That is why the tribunal, as the Green Paper suggests, is for child support only. Clearly, it is a Green Paper and is open to discussion.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked what the phrase "up to £10" means. Any parent who has an income of less than £100 per week—for example, is on benefit—currently pays £5 to the Treasury. We are proposing that the entire £5 goes straight across to the lone parent. The Treasury will not take one penny of it. That includes up to £100 a week. From £100 to £200 there will be a sliding scale to reach the moneys. That is why we say "up to £10." The £5 goes straight across from his benefit or from his low pay to the parent with care to help the child and thereafter it will climb on a sliding scale up to the £200 figure, at which point the basic assessment will be the 15 per cent. for the first child.
I was asked about the different approaches to the second family. I could spend five minutes explaining this, but it is explained in the Green Paper. Either way, it says that there is greater fairness between first and second families. We do not believe it to be right to impoverish the children of the second family in order to finance the well being of the first family. Equally, the first family is the primary responsibility of any non-resident father and he must take that into consideration before making his financial arrangements for the rest of his life.
Finally, there may or may not—I hope not—be anomalies in the Green Paper. They will arise. We have plenty of time for consultation—the consultation period does not end until 30th November. There will almost certainly be a pre-legislative Bill discussed by the Social Security Select Committee and again there will be plenty of time to analyse it there.
990
We are not suggesting to adults that they must be Plasticine to fit into our mould. On the contrary, we are saying that we will take from the non-resident parent—because society believes it appropriate and that parent signs up to these principles—a slice of his income for child support. Thereafter, far from being treated as Plasticine moulded to us, we are saying, "You are an adult. You make your choices. You get on with the rest of your life and prioritise your responsibilities. We will not seek to turn you into a child by second-guessing you. That is for you to decide". However, we say throughout that being a non-resident parent is difficult and demanding and we want to be on his or her side. At the end of it, what matters is that the children gain; that they are supported and supported by both parents equally. That is the basis for the Green Paper.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I know only too well from personal experience how extremely difficult it is to calculate what a person should be paying under the ludicrously complicated formulae set out in the Child Support Act. For that reason, I support the new proposals.
However, the formulae are so complicated because there are so many different things that should be taken into account if a fair figure is to be reached. Among those is the salary of the mother, which has so far not been referred to by my noble friend. It often happens nowadays that the mother earns more than the father or nearly as much. Surely, when that happens, the amount payable by the father should in some way be modified. Perhaps my noble friend can comment on that point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are not taking into account either the income of the parent with care nor the income of the non-resident father's new partner. Forgive me if I use these gendered words; 95 per cent. of lone parents are women, but the whole scheme is gender neutral.
The reason we do not take that income into account is that the child living with the parent with care enjoys the living standards of that parent with care. For example, if the parent with care can afford a larger house, the child enjoys it; if the parent with care can afford generous holidays, the child enjoys them; if the parent with care drives a larger car, the child enjoys it. Second children in the second family enjoy the living standard of the non-resident father; equally, the children of the first family enjoy the living standard of the parent with care. Whatever the mother's income and whatever the father's, he maintains a responsibility for his children. The marriage may end but his family responsibilities continue.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I wish to take up one technical but rather important point. I refer to the question of how far the Government have taken into account the interface between the assessment of fathers and the poverty trap. Page 26 of the Green Paper states:
"we would like to use a simple definition of what counts as income. For example, the new scheme will not include an allowance for housing costs, so it would be unsuitable to class Housing Benefit as assessable income".

991
That started the alarm bells ringing with me because as a father's income goes up he will lose housing benefit, which is not assessable, and it will be replaced with earned income, which is assessable. In that situation it seems to me that there is a serious risk that there will be a poverty trap and that the father will be worse off as his income rises. I have not checked whether that is equally true in other situations, but it worries me greatly. This should be looked at carefully because it seems to be a case where, as is all too common, simplicity and fairness may well be in conflict with each other.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there is a real issue of the poverty trap in all benefits that are tapered. I think we all accept that. It is clear that from earnings of about £200 a week the father is increasingly likely to be off housing benefit. However, on benefit fully, or up to £100 a week where he is paying only the £5 per week, that figure is low enough not to affect his entitlement to housing benefit, and so the poverty trap does not exist.
There is an issue of the income scale between £100 and £200 a week. However, the reason we do not go into this in detail in the Green Paper—we have obviously discussed this at some length—is that housing benefit is currently being reviewed. Secondly, we are reviewing the whole of the New Deal. Thirdly, we are reviewing the working families tax credit, which will overtake family credit. Fourthly, the minimum wage will be coming through. The working families tax credit will have a different taper—not 70 per cent. but 40 per cent. The result is that over the next two years there will be a good many changes in three or four of the different interlocking benefits which affect that income group. By the time it comes to drafting the Bill and the regulations we will have a much clearer idea of where, if anywhere, this bites unreasonably. But that is why, at the moment, it remains relatively open. We are not yet sure how possible changes in housing benefit—no such decisions have been made—the impact of the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and some of the New Deal proposals will interlock to affect that group.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, it was pleasing to hear what the Minister said and I liked the emphasis on children. That is important. The previous system was far too obscure and complicated. If this brings, as I am sure it could with all parties working together, fairness, decency and comprehensiveness, I am sure it will benefit families and children. The fathers should have time to see their children and have a say about them. But they should realise that they have a moral and ethical responsibility in the way of finance. The father's access is another matter because there are sometimes occasions when, even with his responsibilities, it is perhaps not wise for him to have contact. However, what is
992
proposed is good and I hope that it will be done thoroughly and well, as I am sure it will be, the Minister being who she is.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was waiting for the Minister to answer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as it was a compliment, I thought it was more decorous to say nothing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I see. I congratulate my noble friend on repeating the Statement made in another place. It is certainly a good Statement. The Government have done their best to deal with a situation which was none of their making. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I shall say only once, "We told you so". Nevertheless, I would add that we predicted at that time that the Child Support Agency would be another poll tax. We were wrong. It was far worse than the poll tax, as so many people have found out to their cost; indeed, in some cases, the cost of their lives. If I sound bitter about that, it is because I am bitter. I am bitter that we introduced such a system which drove some men to take their own lives because of the impositions on them by the Child Support Agency.
I should like to ask my noble friend one or two questions. I return to the question of access because it is an important question. Often one of the reasons why men do not pay their maintenance is that, despite court orders, they are refused access to their children, with whom they want to continue to associate and towards whom they would be very happy to pay maintenance. They often use refusal of access by the mother as a reason not to pay maintenance. I thought that something was going to be done about that.
Secondly, the workload of the agency will presumably fall considerably and therefore the system will be less costly. Will the Government give serious consideration to returning the whole question to the magistrates' courts? I know that my noble friend criticised the magistrates' courts and their previous lack of ability to collect the maintenance. But that was because of lack of resources which the then government poured into the agency without any good results. I hope my noble friend will reconsider the position.
Finally, with regard to the £10 net benefit—at least I understand that it will be a net benefit and that there will be some benefit from the maintenance that will not all go back to the Government—has she considered whether £10 might be a little low? Can she also say whether there are plans to increase the £10 year-by-year, in accordance with the cost of living or the wages index, or a mixture of both?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his welcome to and support of the Statement. He began by saying that the CSA had been another poll tax. This will be a different body, working a different system in a different way. I believe that we are giving the staff who will be

993
delivering the system the best possible opportunity to deliver something that is seen as fair, balanced, decent and workable.
My noble friend referred to access and to women refusing access despite court orders. I am sad to say that my noble friend is correct. Some research shows that 40 per cent. of parents with care admitted to thwarting an access order, often, although not invariably, because they are in a new relationship and wish to have a clean break from the father. What we are trying to say throughout all of this is that they can divorce each other but not their children. As a result, the father's right to have contact with that child unless the court has said otherwise is something that we should all seek to uphold. Obviously, the courts will be scrupulous where there is any risk of violence or damage to the children and none of us would wish for anything different. The fact that so far 70 per cent. of parents with care have been refusing to co-operate with the agency, nominally alleging "good cause", suggests that things other than a fear of violence are going on.
There is a dilemma as regards the latest announcement by the Lord Chancellor concerning the proposals for parental rights to go alongside the name on the birth certificate. If one wishes to buttress marriage at the expense of all other relationships, one may regard that as undesirable. However, if one wishes to encourage fathers to take on their responsibilities and to share in the upbringing of their children, one has to treat them as though they were married parents in all but legal name. There is a dilemma here and your Lordships will accept it. If we downgrade the rights of former cohabiting fathers, the children will suffer in terms of the attention they receive from their fathers in future. That is why my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is seeking to extend parental rights to fathers who are cohabiting. I hope that that will ensure, where there is no risk of violence or threat of it, that the father will go on to enjoy some of the rights that divorced fathers have. It is quite remarkable that at the moment men who are most willing to pay also pay the highest amounts of money. That is because they are divorced fathers who have access and where there has been higher engagement in their children's lives.
I was asked whether we were thinking of returning to the magistrates' court. The whole thrust of this paper is for a simple formula. We believe that lone parents were let down by a system that was random, uneven and costly. As regards the maintenance disregard at £10 being higher, I do not doubt that there will be an on-going debate with the Treasury on that subject in future years.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the Statement referred to dramatically less time being required to process applications. Can the noble Baroness say what time, effort and machinery will be devoted to assessing the true net income of the self-employed father, particularly those who are not inclined to overstate their income to the Inland Revenue, to the former wife or to anyone else? That is a problem that is not going to go away. It
994
is easy to be deceived by the conveniently clear and round figures which always appear in the worked examples in Green Papers such as this.
Now that there is to be a simpler formula and the legal profession can throw away their expensive computer programs but still hang on to their calculators, perhaps it is time to say that the courts can once again be trusted to make orders or sanction agreements at least where they are incidental to matrimonial proceedings between husband and wife in which the finances will have been scrutinised in considerable detail. I do not say that that should be confined to the magistrates' court. Indeed, it is more likely that those cases are heard in the county court and the High Court.
I thought I heard the noble Baroness say that the matter would be considered by the Social Security Select Committee. Does that indicate that there will be full pre-legislative scrutiny of any legislation that comes before Parliament?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the answer is yes to the noble Lord's third point. My noble friend gave an assurance to Mr. Archy Kirkwood in another place that, should the Select Committee wish to take it up, there would be the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. It is so important to try to get the broadest possible consent and information concerning the proposals.
The second point that the noble Lord raised concerns the self-employed. He is right. Perhaps they are between 7 and 10 per cent. of the non-resident fathers. They are certainly between 20 and 30 per cent. of the problem. In the Green Paper we are proposing that the calculation of income for self-employed parents will be on exactly the same basis as the returns prepared for the Inland Revenue. That will be a start. The degree to which there will be any sharing of information with the Inland Revenue is a question that has yet to be discussed and resolved. There will be no excuses that we are trying to work on a system different from that being prepared for the self-employed person by his accountant.
As regards the court sanctioning orders, apart from the cost and its random nature and unpredictability, the court system is essentially adversarial. In the past it has sought to have "high noon" over the levels of maintenance for children's support. It is not an approach that we wish to see continued. It is certainly true that under the new divorce proceedings mediation will be much more to the fore, and we welcome that. Therefore, we are hoping that the information about expected child maintenance liability will be part of the information that goes into the mediation process and that it will allow it to be simpler and cleaner than in the past. We do not believe that the court should seek to determine what should be paid. It can do so only if it has full discretion. We are seeking to treat alike similar people in similar circumstances. That is the basis of the formula.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement. I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the start of it. I wish to ask a couple of questions. As regards a clean break, and if there is a change of circumstance for the caring parent who gets income

995
support, is it the intention that automatically the CSA will come against the absent parent? Are we going to take account of one-off payments or the setting up of trust funds for children, remembering, as my noble friend Lord Higgins said, that in many cases absent parents do not mind at all paying for the upkeep of their children but what they cannot stand and do not want to do is to support the absent wife?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as regards the clean break, in the past it has been concerned with property between the two spouses and not maintenance for the children. The legal profession currently knows what is expected through the CSA. The legal profession knows what the CSA will be doing in future with the Green Paper proposals. The disposition of property between the spouses will be made in the light of those proposals. Essentially, the clean break applies to spousal property and not to child maintenance, and it never has. As regards trust funds and one-off payments, we shall be looking at that kind of thing in the consultation period. It is possible that this could be the kind of circumstance the tribunal could take into account.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
5.28 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("four") and insert ("five").
The noble Lord said: After that interlude on a highly complex subject, I assure the Committee that there is nothing particularly complex about this group of amendments. Amendment No. 8 is the effective amendment, while Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are merely consequential.
I believe that there is widespread concern, except in terrorist circles, that there has been persistent and consistent backsliding by both this Government and their predecessors on what was once called the surrender of arms and is now called decommissioning. Once—it now seems so long ago—there would be no talks with the mouthpieces of terrorism without the permanent renunciation of violence and indeed a surrender of arms. That was in a bygone age when Front Bench politicians made brave speeches about there being no concessions to violence and when paramilitaries, as they were to become, were known as common criminals or terrorists.
Now we recognise that those who kill for politics or out of prejudice are criminals of a special class who deserve specially soft treatment. This Bill is the last occasion on which we have any leverage at all before we make that concession to those who believe that violence is the appropriate political response to difficulties. The amendment would put some small obligation upon those special category political criminals.
Perhaps I may take a moment or two to read to the Committee a Written Answer to a Question which I tabled on 21st May. I asked Her Majesty's Government,
"their latest assessment of the likelihood of the surrender of terrorist arms in Northern Ireland".
I should have thought that there would be a pretty short reply to that but, as ever, when the short reply would be embarrassing, one gets quite a long reply—I have been a Minister myself! The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, replied:
"All the parties supporting the agreement of 10 April are committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They have also confirmed their intention to work with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to achieve decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement of the agreement in referendums.
The agreement—if endorsed at referendum—must be implemented in all its parts. In his speech in Belfast on 14 May, the Prime Minister clarified the factors that would be taken into account in judging whether the terms and spirit of the agreement were being met. These factors include, 'full co-operation with the Independent Commission on Decomissioning, to implement the provisions of the Agreement' and the Prime Minister undertook that this will be enshrined in forthcoming legislation".—[Official Report, 21/5/98; col. WA 199.]
I should have liked to enshrine those precise words in my amendment, but that was technically slightly more difficult than I could cope with, and the nearest that I could get are the words of Amendment No. 8, in which I laid down a fifth condition (above the four in the Bill) relating to the release of a prisoner. The fifth condition is that that person is,
"co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in implementing the Decommissioning section of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883".
That is as close as I could get technically to the precise words of the Prime Minister, but it is certainly the spirit of his words.
I hope that Ministers and other noble Lords will agree that it is nothing less than common sense and justice that, before a prisoner is finally approved for release on licence, he should have done all that he could to secure the decommissioning of arms. A prisoner may know where arms are hidden. He may have access, through his continuing links with the IRA, the UVF or any other terrorist organisation, to information by which the security forces might have access to those arms. He may have friends who can help. It seems to me that before he is released he should do everything in his power to secure the decommissioning of arms. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am happy to add my support to these amendments because they are designed to assist the commission in supplying what I think could be called "greater clarification" of the position, mindset and status of a prisoner applying for release. Without the amendment, the conditions are so vague as to be almost useless to the commission. The second condition, is,
"that the prisoner is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation".
But who decides that? Is there to be a mere verbal assurance from the prisoner? Will the commission ignore the verifiable fact that the prisoner, on his admission to prison, had insisted on being housed in the

997
prison block under the control of a given terrorist organisation? I know that it may seem curious that a prisoner becoming a guest in the Maze Prison can dictate to the governor which block he wishes to be in so that not only can he chum up with his comrades, but, as was said earlier, he can receive instruction from the more experienced godfathers.
The third condition is that he would not be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or to become involved in or connected with terrorism. In the light of what I have just said about choice of residence in the Maze Prison, we must ask of what value are the words, "would not be likely". Surely the new, modest condition which has been proposed is essential if the whole release scheme is not to become the object of ridicule.
Lord Renwick of Clifton: I have the highest regard for the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Molyneaux, but I must appeal to the Committee not to support this amendment. We all have strong feelings about aspects of this Bill. As others have said, there will be no early release for the victims of terrorism. Like many others in this House, I have spent a large part of my professional life fighting against those who committed these horrendous crimes, but in relation to this amendment, surely we have to keep in mind the purpose of this Bill, which is to give effect to an agreement upon which the future of Northern Ireland will depend and which, if successful, should help to ensure that there are no more victims of terrorism.
The fundamental consideration is the principle of consent—and that has been fully protected. The other fundamental issue is not decommissioning but a permanent end to violence. Decommissioning is part of that, but it is not the only part. The Government have to make a judgment as to the quality and permanence of the ceasefire in a process which, as the Prime Minister said, will necessarily be more rigorous over time. The 1995 Act on the early release of prisoners, which was sponsored, I believe, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, received bipartisan support. This is not an amnesty, and it is also deserving of general support. All sorts of conditions are imposed: an application can be refused; a licence can be revoked; the entire process can be suspended—and no doubt will be—if there is a return to violence.
Given the terms of Clause 3(9)(d) of the Bill, the amendment is superfluous. Clause 3(9) states:
"In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation"—
not a person, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested—
"(d) is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act".
The issue is covered to the full extent that it reasonably can be by that provision. I firmly believe that the cause of peace in Northern Ireland will not be helped by amending the Bill today and I hope that the Committee will not support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise briefly to oppose the amendment. The Stormont agreement is not subject
998
to renegotiation. It was no more or less than a linkage between irreconcilable opposites placed in juxtaposition to achieve a common purpose. It was a desperate, but fragile, mutual expression of hope, endorsed by the vast majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland. That linkage reflected an understanding which is not found in the paper in the Library to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. This linkage in no way embraced the position of decommissioning. That was put aside obviously for the purpose of serving the common end, which is something akin to an oxymoron. To try to introduce it at this stage when there is no reference to it in the agreement at paragraphs 1 to 3 on page 25, or in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the paper in the Library, places the Government in an all but impossible position if they accept it. For that reason, and in furtherance of the peace process, I oppose the amendment.
Viscount Brookeborough: I cannot say whether this amendment alters the agreement. However, I support the intention behind it. Its intention is to provide the people of Northern Ireland with some tangible evidence that these terrorists will become reformed. When we ask for this evidence we are told that a prisoner must declare that he is not the supporter of a terrorist organisation. On a purely practical point, he will leave his cell, which is located in a terrorist block, and declare in an interview that he no longer supports his cell mates. Presumably, the decision as to his release will not be taken while he is in the interview. What happens to him? Does he return to his cell where others ask him where he has been, or will there be a cooling off area in which all of these reformed terrorists wait their time? A practical problem arises should an individual declare that he no longer supports a terrorist organisation.
The other matter that is put forward by way of reassurance is that the licence can be revoked if the individual commits another terrorist crime. However, the licence can be revoked only if he is caught and convicted of being a terrorist. I do not believe that the point about release on licence is as reassuring as it seems. If he commits an offence he must still be caught in order to reconvict him or revoke the licence. I support this amendment in an attempt to tighten up the regulation of this matter.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to be present in the Chamber at Second Reading. However, I read the Official Report of that debate and found it intensely moving. Many noble Lords who contributed had to wrestle over bitter years with the framing of policies with no simple right course of action. Many have had close experience of the suffering of victims. We have to ask what signal we will send out if the Committee agrees to this amendment which seeks to change the agreement, sensitively balanced as it is; for in it there is not a link between the release of prisoners and the decommissioning of weapons. It is organisations that can make that commitment, whereas the point just made makes it extremely difficult for an individual to do just that.

999
This debate takes place in Westminster. The place in which we debate these matters influences the way we speak and think. If we were bringing a proposal to the conference to try to produce an agreement, this could well be part of what your Lordships might want to do. But the agreement that has been reached is an honest attempt to chisel a structure that will be respected by all sides in the community. If we made these changes, what message would that send to the people of east Belfast or the Bogside? Very importantly, what signal will it send to those Unionists who have committed themselves to making the assembly and the agreement work?
On a number of occasions I had the privilege of visiting Northern Ireland together with my friend Archbishop Derek Warlock, often with Free Church leaders from Liverpool. We listened to people from different sides of the religious divide and were very conscious of their closeness to the victims of brutal killings at funeral after funeral. Often they visited victims from other communities. Yet one was conscious of their very firm commitment to reconciliation.
I use "reconciliation" in a quite different context. Derek Warlock and I made a three-week visit to South Africa in 1989, at the invitation of the two archbishops of Cape Town, when the state of emergency was still in force. I used the word "reconciliation" at a meeting with students in Cape Town. They angrily dismissed that word as being soft. I believed that they were wrong. With enormous courage South Africa has appointed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I believe that the way it has worked has demonstrated that reconciliation is not a soft word. It does not imply that crimes do not matter. Reconciliation is very costly. It does not mean appeasement. But it means that each side may have to give up something that it would have wanted to keep.
I have been reading an assessment of the commission's work written by Professor Hugh Corder of the University of Cape Town. He says that the commission has been the medium through which the chasm dividing the life experiences of white and black South Africans can begin to be understood and narrowed. He concludes:
"What it has done, in my view, is to [break] certain preconceptions, countered prejudices and fought for the permanent installation in public and communal life in South Africa of humility, humanity and forgiveness as the essential features of a workable future".
Those are not soft words in that context or in the context of Ireland; they are very costly.
I do not believe that Northern Ireland is yet ready for a truth and reconciliation commission. No amnesty is being granted. As the Minister has made clear, prisoners are released on licence which can be revoked. But in Northern Ireland reconciliation needs to be worked for no less. The Good Friday Agreement puts in place a structure that must not be weakened. On it must be placed the costly process of healing relationships across communities. Victims and their families need to feel safe if they commit themselves to this reconciliation. Protagonists on all sides need to be drawn into it. There are no modern examples of a peace process of which the release of prisoners has not been a major part of the
1000
agreement. For example, over 2,000 Palestinians were released when Israel reached its agreement with Mr. Arafat. There can be no peace and reconciliation without a principled compromise.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me if what I am about to say has already been referred to. I could not see it in the Second Reading debate. I believe that it is worth referring to the comments of Nelson Mandela about Ireland. He said that as long as there were men and women on all sides who were able to rise above feelings for revenge, who could put the future of their children first and put terrible episodes behind them in order to move on, this process could work, as his eventually did. It would take a long time and there would be many disappointments but it could be done if the will was unshakeable.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, but I am not sure that I agree—I recognise and urge the need for compromise which leads to reconciliation—with him that the day will ever come when the model of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission will make a useful contribution in Northern Ireland. I accept the burden of his sentiments, and I am glad that he said what he did.
I respect the motives behind the amendment, and I understand the reasoning that leads to it. I want briefly to challenge the consequences. I can be brief because the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, said very much what I was going to say. First, there is a problem with the amendment, which I think is more than technical. It deals with persons rather than organisations—a point made also by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.
It is difficult for prisoners to be capable of co-operating with the decommissioning commission. It is possible that some may be, but many will not. After all, most weapons are held centrally and controlled by quartermasters. The notion of individuals co-operating with the disarmament commission is a difficult one with which to deal. However, that is not my main objection to the amendment, which is that it undoubtedly tries to move on beyond the Good Friday Agreement.
An amendment was moved in another place which tried to make the connection directly between decommissioning and prisoner release. It was defeated. Indeed, Mr. David Trimble said that for him it had been a negative factor in the elections that we have just had. I hope that we in this place will recognise that our responsibility is to send positive messages in support of Mr. Trimble, and not inadvertently send messages in support of Mr. Paisley. Although, as I said, I understand the motives behind the amendment, I hope that the Committee will not accept it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am inclined to support the amendment. It will send a message from this place to certain people in Northern Ireland: that this place is serious about wanting to punish terrorists, and to see that they remain punished. I was unable to speak on Second Reading. Had I been so able, I think I would probably have pointed out that we were sending a strange sort of message to future terrorists, particularly

1001
at a time when we are setting up a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. We may very well be sending a message to people who want to go a lot further than that, and who might want to do it by unacceptable and terrorist means: "It is all right, chaps. You go ahead. You get on with your terrorism, in the full knowledge that when the UK Government get tired of it all, and want to end it, and want a Good Friday, an Easter or any other sort of agreement, they will bring forward legislation which will reduce the sentences for your terrorism". I do not think that that is a good message to be sending, quite frankly, to possible future terrorists.
It is all right to talk about reconciliation. We all agree with reconciliation, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said, there have to be compromises. Of course there have to be compromises. The problem is that as far as I can see so far the compromises have all been one sided. Mr. McGuinness is still talking about the "terrorist British Army" which has to be withdrawn. There has been no modification of the language against the British Army and the security forces in Northern Ireland. We have not seen the compromises that some of us believe should be made in Northern Ireland if we are to achieve a lasting settlement—a settlement which is acceptable to all the people of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said that people would think it strange if this Parliament were to pass an amendment of the sort that has been moved by the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Molyneaux. But this is still the Parliament of the UK. It does not really matter that the Good Friday Agreement, or any agreement, has been made. In the last analysis, Parliament still has a place, and, indeed, a duty to discuss this agreement, and to make any amendments which it feels are necessary.
I hope that people will not be intimidated into thinking that, because they are Members of this place, or the British Parliament, they no longer have any say over matters which go on in Northern Ireland, because they still do. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, moved his amendment briefly. I believe that it is an amendment that would give encouragement to many people in Northern Ireland. It would give people who have been convicted of terrorism an opportunity to recant in some way. They would be helping towards the maintenance of peace by taking weapons out of Northern Ireland.
Let us not forget that so long as those weapons exist, they are a threat to the new assembly and to the new order in Northern Ireland. That is why it is necessary, and good, that this place and other people should consider the linkage of terrorist early releases to decommissioning. As I have said, while those arms remain—whether they are in the hands of the IRA, the UDA, or whoever else—they are a threat to the continuation of the assembly and its success. I will support the amendment if it is put to a vote.
The Earl of Longford: The greatest danger in Northern Ireland is the existence of the paramilitary bodies. There are half a dozen or more of them. Half of them are Protestant and half of them are Catholic. Half of them are involved in the agreement and half of them are not. If those who are involved gave up their weapons tomorrow far more dangerous paramilitary bodies would
1002
remain. In the end, the only way to get rid of the paramilitary bodies is for the public to repudiate them. That will come about only when the Protestant and Catholic communities overcome their suspicions, as I believe will happen, but it can only happen under the agreement. Everything depends upon getting the agreement through.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was not present to make his speech on Second Reading. He will find that some of the sentiments he expressed were expressed at the time. He referred to the position of the British Army. Of course at the moment the British Army is engaged in protecting the Garvaghy Road and the enclave there. I do not know whether that will change the opinion. I think it unlikely. It should change the opinion a little of some of those whom he mentioned.
In referring to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, regarding the lack of relevance of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We all agree with reconciliation, but the difficult question for us to answer is whether the prisoners, whom it is proposed to release, have, in reality, put the violence behind them or whether they will return to it. It will not do any good to release them if they have not given up violence. It would do no good for reconciliation. That is the nub of the question which the amendment addresses in respect of decommissioning.
I have no wish—quite the contrary—to make life more difficult for any members of the assembly, Mr. Trimble or anyone else. I have no wish to step outside the agreement. I do not believe that members of the assembly have taken any soft option in supporting the agreement, being prepared to stand up for it and entering the assembly on that basis. However, the question is whether a linkage with decommissioning is within the agreement.
I have difficulty with this amendment because the linkage proposed is personal to the prisoner rather than collective to the organisation to which he belongs. My amendments, Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 18, and Amendment No. 14 which the Liberal Democrats propose, attempt to look at linkage to the organisation to which the prisoner belongs. I make no judgment as to whether it is more desirable or more effective to have the linkage personal to the individual prisoner as opposed to a collective linkage. I am making a judgment as to which is more in line with the agreement.
It is not an easy matter. However, paragraph 5 of the first page of the agreement states that all concerned will,
"work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement".
That seems to set up a general linkage between all the pieces of the package. It has been expressed frequently by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and many others that it is an agreement as a whole, with a series of bits in it. One of the bits relates to the decommissioning; another bit relates to prisoners, as does the Bill. There is a general linkage.

1003
As regards prisoners, in later amendments we seek to stiffen up a little—my noble friend seeks to do so in this amendment—the specific linkage between prisoners and decommissioning, which is part of the general linkage. The real link is the terrorists themselves. It is the terrorist organisations which have to put decommissioning into practice; they have to decommission their weapons. It is the terrorist individuals in prison who stand to benefit most from the Bill and from this part of the agreement.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: How does the noble Lord propose to deal with the paramilitary organisations, Protestant and Catholic, which are outside the agreement and have no intention, it seems, of coming into it?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: They are not dealt with by the Bill because they are specifically excluded if they are not on ceasefire. There is no way that we can deal with those. As I said at Second Reading and on other occasions, the idea that the Bill or the agreement will bring total peace, even if everything goes as smoothly as we all hope it will, is a mistake. There are likely to be organisations on both sides—I make no distinction—that will continue violence for political reasons and for the rackets. That is why a continual security presence and a continual security effort will still be required for a considerable time. But that is no reason for not doing the best we can to put everything in the agreement in place. But the idea that everything will be 100 per cent. successful is wishful thinking of a high order.
I wish briefly to address whether or not a convicted terrorist, languishing (if that is the right word) in gaol can co-operate with the commission in its decommissioning work. My noble friend gave some examples—by giving information, and so on—of the ways in which prisoners might be able to help. However, collectively they have great influence. For example, it was extremely important that in the interview with the Financial Times a few days ago Mr. Wilson, who is described as the senior member of PIRA in the Maze, expressed himself more sympathetic about the possibility of decommissioning than anyone else in PIRA has ever done in public to my knowledge. That is an individual, influential prisoner arguing for the process of decommissioning, and making it possible. It also points out my belief that if prisoners are not arguing for decommissioning—and the Bill is central as to whether they do—it is most unlikely to happen.
On the other hand, if prisoners are arguing for decommissioning, it is more likely to happen. If it does not happen, the agreement and everything connected with it is ultimately doomed. Decommissioning is part of the agreement. It is linked to every other part of the agreement. We are not supposed to use the words "cherry-picking" any more; we were told off for doing so the other day. But people have used the words; we all know what the expression means. No one can separate the different parts of the agreement. There is a general linkage. This is one specific example.
1004
The linkage in the amendment is personal to the prisoner rather than collective to the organisation. I prefer later amendments which I hope to put to the Committee before long.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renwick and Lord Sheppard, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for their support of the Government's position on the amendment. I was impressed by my noble friend Lord Sheppard when he spoke about the need for reconciliation. There is, and has been for some years, a lot of reconciliation taking place in Northern Ireland. I have met former republican paramilitaries co-operating with former loyalist paramilitaries in working for the good of their local communities. Some impressive work is going on. All that seems to me to add up to a process of reconciliation. Of course there needs to be more of it. But that surely is one of the positive features in Northern Ireland and one which the previous government and this Government seek to encourage.
I do not believe, in the words of my noble friend Lord Stoddart, that the compromises in the agreement were all one-sided. I believe that that will be hotly denied by many of the Northern Ireland political parties across the political spectrum which were happy to support the outcome of the agreement. I believe that the agreement reflected the views of most of the political parties and of the two governments and is therefore an important document. I make no apology for invoking it in support of, or against, some of the amendments under discussion today.
Perhaps I may clarify one point. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that to the prisoner being released on licence the provision would be of little value as he would have to be convicted of a further terrorist offence. I am pleased to say that that is not so. A prisoner may be recalled if the Secretary of State considers he is likely to re-engage in terrorism. So the licence is wider in effect than the noble Viscount suggested.
We do not want to allow any suggestion that the Bill is about bartering arms for prisoners. I fear that the thrust of the amendment gets us very close to that position. The Good Friday Agreement is a package which makes provision for prisoner releases and decommissioning as well as a range of other matters; and the Government are committed to implementing the agreement in full. But it does not propose a process of the kind outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
The amendment also does not take account of how decommissioning is intended to happen. Several noble Lords made the point. It is for organisations to decommission weapons, not individuals. Of course it will be for individual members of the organisation, or other designated intermediaries, to take forward the decommissioning process. But they will do so as agents of the organisation, not on their own behalf. This is what is allowed for by the legislation and the decommissioning scheme which came into effect on 30th June.

1005
For these reasons it would not be appropriate to place such a restriction on prisoners as the noble Lord suggests. I call on the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tebbit: I am not having a great deal of luck today. At least I am encouraged on this occasion by the quarters from which both support and opposition came. I should say to my noble friend Lord Cope that the British Army—or, to be more correct, the Army of the United Kingdom—is today doing in Northern Ireland what it has always done. It is seeking to uphold the law and is operating under the political direction of the Government of the day. It has never done anything else. Of course from time to time that means coming into conflict with one group or another, but it is absolutely certain that there is no difference in what the Army is doing now at Drumcree from what it has done in the past. Whether or not what it is doing at Drumcree is a wise act is a matter for the politicians. It may be seen at some time in the future that it was a very unwise act. That is another matter and no doubt will be the subject of debate on another day.
Once again we are told that nothing can be done which would in any way potentially, possibly conceivably, conflict with the agreement. The agreement is sacred because it has been endorsed by the referendum. I have grave doubts about the conduct of the referendum. As I said earlier, I do not like referendums which are conducted under circumstances where those who support one side are fully armed and have a record for using guns and bombs. In the mildest possible terms, that puts some degree of pressure upon the others.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right—as he so often is, if I may say so: the people of England, Wales and Scotland have not spoken on this deal, this agreement. So we should not preclude the possibility that their representatives in this Parliament might decide to amend in some way the legislation which springs from it. Of course it is right to consider whether we would be wise to do so, what the effects of that would be, or whether we have been backed into a corner where we have little choice, but at least we should remember that we have the right—and that right cannot be taken away from us by virtue of a referendum in one corner of this Kingdom.
I look at page 20 of the agreement, as distributed in Northern Ireland. My amendment does not fly in the face of it. Under the heading of "Decommissioning" it says:
"All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith … to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms".
It does not say "but not as individuals". It does not say "This is a purely collective act". It does not say "Individuals are absolved from any responsibility. It can be done only by the organisation". Of what is an organisation comprised if it is not of individuals? Can we all devolve ourselves of responsibility for what is
1006
done by "the organisation"? Surely not. Surely that excuse has been tried before in many places and condemned by many people.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, reminded us of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. My understanding is that that commission is more likely to threaten to put people in gaol than to open the gaol doors and let them out. That seems to be closer to its powers. I deplore the comparison with South Africa and the disputed Palestinian territories. In South Africa there was no democratic path forward. In the disputed territories in Palestine and Israel there is still no democratic path forward. In Northern Ireland there always has been a democratic path forward. The problem there has never been lack of democracy but the existence of a number of people who would not accept the outcome of democracy.
It is they with their guns who have won the day. They are getting their way with their guns. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, is shaking his head. Then why did we not just rely on the outcome of elections? Why did we have to have this agreement, when Ministers of the Crown sat down with known criminals, when terrorists were invited in as friends of democracy? Oh no, the democratic path was rejected by some of the people of Northern Ireland. This agreement derives entirely, completely, absolutely and in every last word from that rejection of democracy and that use of force.
It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, shaking his head. Everybody knows what has happened. Governments have been bombed to the conference table. That is what the IRA was for and that is what the violence in Northern Ireland has been about. Rejecting not necessarily this amendment but other amendments which may be better drafted will of course send a message to Northern Ireland. The message will be "Hang on to your guns, boys. Hang on to your guns. It will not cost you anything".
We are constantly told that this agreement is a seamless garment. It is an object of such perfection and beauty that it cannot be changed for the better in any respect. We were told that the Government intend to see it implemented in its entirety. I remind Ministers that part of that determination to see it implemented in its entirety is the obligation which will lay upon the Government to see that within two years all terrorist arms have been decommissioned. I hope that in two years' time I shall be able to stand in this House and say that my unworthy suspicions were ill-founded. I shall rejoice in the knowledge that all terrorist arms have been decommissioned. I doubt that I shall be called upon to do that—and, of course, the prisoners will all be out. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("or of an organisation proscribed under section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I am seeking more of an explanation than an argument as to how the Bill is intended to work. I want to know

1007
how proscribed organisations fit into the scheme proposed by the Bill. Amendment No. 24 to Clause 9 has similar effect to Amendment No. 6 as regards the release on licence provisions.
I am seeking to explore the relationship between the term "terrorist organisation", which is the term used in the Bill, and the organisations which are proscribed organisations within the meaning of the PTA. The matter was dealt with in one sense by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on Second Reading when he said on more than one occasion that the Bill is not intended to have any effect on whether an organisatiion is proscribed. He said:
"The provisions in relation to proscription in the Emergency Provisions Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act are unaffected and will remain in place. No organisation which is currently proscribed will be de-proscribed as a consequence of this Bill becoming law. However, it is possible for an organisation to be a proscribed organisation but not be a terrorist organisation as defined by this Bill. This is because the Bill focuses on whether an organisation has established and maintained a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, whereas the EPA and PTA look to the nature of the organisation".
A sentence or two later, the Minister continued that,
"the Secretary of State must consider … whether an organisation is 'concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging'".
That is precisely the language of the PTA.
Later, he said:
"I am talking about prisoners who satisfy the test that they are not associated with an organisation that is not on ceasefire. The key test is that they are not associated with an organisation that is not on ceasefire. If a terrorist",
and the Minister did use that word,
"happens to be a member of the Provisional IRA, and the Provisional IRA is on ceasefire, then that prisoner would qualify".—[Official Report, 29/6/98; cols. 488–490.]
That was extremely helpful and the Minister was in his usual helpful mode in that regard. But it does not seem to me to explain the drafting of Clauses 3 and 9.
The foundation of my concern is the statutory basis for proscribing organisations under the PTA. The IRA and PIRA were both proscribed in Schedule 1 to the Act and other organisations have been added since by order. The test is that the organisations in question appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned in or in promoting or encouraging terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom and concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Section 1 of the PTA also gives the Secretary of State the power to remove an organisation from the list of proscribed organisations. That is a power which she would presumably exercise when it appeared to her that an organisation had so altered its activities that it was no longer concerned in promoting or encouraging terrorism. That is part of the test in this Bill.
Therefore, the dilemma is: how is it possible to be satisfied under Clause 3(5) that a prisoner, if released, would not become a member of a terrorist organisation or would not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and yet at the same time accept that the same prisoner is and
1008
intends to remain a member or supporter of an organisation that warrants retaining its designation as a proscribed organisation?
On the one hand, the four commissioners authorising the release are required to hold that the prisoner is unlikely to be involved in terrorism or with an organisation concerned with it; and, on the other hand, the commissioners are being permitted to reach that view in respect of an individual prisoner—the Minister described him as a terrorist—who is or intends to become and remain a supporter of a proscribed organisation, proscribed exactly because of that organisation's concern in or involvement with the promotion or encouragement of terrorism.
It is extremely difficult to see how anyone can be satisfied that an individual who was and proposes to remain a member of an organisation that the Secretary of State thinks it is necessary to proscribe and to continue to keep proscribed, when released, is not likely to be concerned with those same acts.
I have looked at the terms of the agreement and these amendments would not infringe its terms. However, what I suggest in these amendments is not specifically provided for but nor is there any mention of it. I do not wish to press the amendments if they are not compatible with the agreement, but it seems to me that it would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee what is encompassed by the term "a complete and unequivocal ceasefire". Does that preclude any terrorist activities such as the training of members, the acquisition and stockpiling of weapons, the surveying of possible targets and, for that matter, the disciplining that proscribed organisations have carried out over many years? Or is it limited to the actual carrying out of acts of violence against third parties, whether civilian or military, by shootings, bombings and so on?
If the Minister were able to confirm that the broader intention is the correct one, that would help us all. Certainly, the speech made by the Prime Minister at Balmoral, to which reference has already been made, suggests that the broader construction is the correct one and we certainly hope it is. Indeed, there could be an argument for defining "ceasefire" in the Bill as well on the lines of the Prime Minister's Balmoral speech. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I fail to see the dilemma to which my noble friend referred. Surely it is fairly simple and not very complicated. Under the provisions of Clause 3, at line 11, the commissioners must consider whether a prisoner is or is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation. "Terrorist organisation" must include, in the words of the amendment, the proscribed organisation so that if, as a matter of fact, the commissioners, on their inquiry, conclude that he is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation, that means that there is no need to include the amendment at that stage.
Then one reaches a subsequent stage where a terrorist organisation is specified by order by the Secretary of State. That is not done by a commissioner but it is

1009
another process. He may specify only organisations which, under the terms of Clause 3(8)(b):
"have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire".
I simply cannot understand the difficulty. It seems to me that it is a two-stage process undertaken by two different people. It is the type of process which was envisaged by the agreement. I make no apology for relying on the agreement and on the letter of it. I cannot see a difficulty unless there is something defective with my reasoning.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: It is quite clear to me that this is a rather difficult proposition. If one looks, first, at the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, it will be seen that it is to define what is a terrorist organisation and, indeed, to list those which are terrorist organisations. The commissioners would not therefore release, or recommend for release, any person who is a member of one of those organisations.
Here is the difficulty. Let us take, for example, the IRA. As my noble friend Lord Cope said, the IRA is a proscribed organisation under the Protection of Terrorism Act precisely because it is a terrorist organisation. But a whole number of the prisoners in the Maze gaol have accommodated themselves, at their wish, in the wings which are run by their favourite terrorist organisation. They have taken that action to show that they are members of it. Indeed, it is proposed that they will be let out precisely because that terrorist organisation is currently on ceasefire. It will be held that the IRA is different in this respect from the INLA. They are both terrorist organisations, as set out in the Protection of Terrorism Act, but one of them is on ceasefire and therefore, as the Minister said on Second Reading, the IRA is for this purpose not a terrorist organisation, while the INLA is.
The only distinction between the two organisations is the fact that one is on ceasefire and the other is not. So where do we go from here? I believe that my noble friend has identified a very clear difficulty. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Kilbracken: It seems to me that a great deal of confusion arises because of the use of the words "terrorist organisation" in subsection (4) of Clause 3. When we talk about terrorist organisations, we are completely accustomed to thinking of the IRA, the UVF or any of the other organisations that have been involved in terrorism. However, for the purposes of the Bill, we must look to subsection (8) of the clause for a definition of a "terrorist organisation". In effect, the subsection says that if the organisation is on ceasefire it is no longer a terrorist organisation. The members of it are exactly the same and the organisation is the same, but because for the time being it is on ceasefire, it is no longer a terrorist organisation. If it comes off ceasefire, the same people and the same organisation will be involved. But suddenly it is a terrorist organisation.
1010
My own feeling is that this situation could quite easily be rectified by a simple rewording of subsection (4); namely, that,
"the prisoner is not a supporter of a specified organisation".
Then, subsection (8) should also be reworded to say:
"A specified organisation is an organisation specified by order of the Secretary of State".
That would mean that we could use the phrase "specified organisation" instead of "terrorist organisation" wherever it occurs in the Bill. This matter seems to have caused a great deal of confusion both on Second Reading and indeed today. I suggest that it should be rectified by amendments on Report.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendment for some of the reasons that have just been given. Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA, with the IRA being the military wing of Sinn Fein. Although it is a proscribed organisation within the Prevention of Terrorism Act, I do not see how it can ever become a non-terrorist organisation when it calls itself the Irish Republican Army. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the Secretary of State or anyone else could actually convince most people in Northern Ireland that the UVF, the LVF, the INLA or the IRA were non-terrorist organisations. For that reason, I support the principle behind the amendment.
Lord Desai: My noble friend Lord Kilbracken has pointed out where the problem lies. We shall come across this problem again and again. However, if we defined the whole thing completely, logically and legally, we would find that there are many anomalies because it is a messy situation. In other words, we cannot take it as a straightforward legal situation.
In his excellent Second Reading speech the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, made the point that this is not a post-colonial settlement; it is a settlement within the laws of the UK. He was right in one way, but I would say "yes and no" which, as an academic person, I am entitled to do. We had a second referendum in the South. The referendum in the South had to do with the fact that this is neither a purely post-colonial situation nor a purely UK situation. Those two referendums had to be done together because it was a post-colonial situation as of 1922 which was dragged into 1998. Within the Northern Ireland context, it is a UK situation.
Therefore, as I said, we shall come across the situation again and again where pure logic does not apply and politics takes over. Politics is a very messy concept. I quite agree that many people feel very strongly about the matter. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said, there are terrorist organisations which, under some definitions, are "all terrorist". However, some of them have declared a ceasefire and have constructed a situation through which this agreement has been made possible.
All of us know that this is a particularly fragile situation. It may all unravel and we may find ourselves back at square one, where we have been before. However, the point of the Bill, especially the way that it combines subsections (4) and (8) of the clause, is that

1011
it says, "Yes, there are terrorist organisations, but the ones that we are currently interested in are those which have agreed to a ceasefire". That is the distinction. Therefore, it is no good defining those organisations under the PTA; indeed, that would be far too general politically. Legally it is right, but politically the correct situation is to see who has agreed to a ceasefire.
Lord Tebbit: I believe that the noble Lord has missed one of the points; namely, that this is an Alice Through the Looking-glass situation. The IRA will be, simultaneously, not a terrorist organisation but still a "proscribed organisation" because it is a terrorist organisation. I may be a simple soul, but I find that very difficult to accommodate. It is as though the Church of England were being held to be simultaneously both a Christian organisation and an atheist organisation. It will cause some puzzlement to all of us, although perhaps not to entirely all of us at times. However, one can understand that it ought to be one thing or the other: is the IRA a terrorist organisation or not? You cannot have two pieces of legislation on the statute book specifying contrary things.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Surely we have constructively exposed the gremlin in the drafting. Something has gone wrong here. You cannot be a terrorist organisation and then not be a terrorist organisation because you happen to be on ceasefire. I say that because the next day, after the decision has been taken, the ceasefire may be rescinded. If the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, were prepared to consider how the anomaly arises in relation to this provision as drafted, perhaps it would be helpful to have some form of government amendment, or our own amendment, at Report stage. There is something adrift here.
Lord Desai: I shall now reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. The IRA is a terrorist organisation, but within the class of terrorist organisations some have agreed to a ceasefire but others have not. Subsection (8) states explicitly on the face of the Bill that those terrorist organisations which have agreed to a ceasefire are to be treated differently from those which have not. That seems to me logically to be all right. There can be different kinds of terrorist organisation. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said, we cannot undo the fact that the IRA is a terrorist organisation. However, we can take into account the fact that it has agreed to a ceasefire and therefore its political wing, Sinn Fein, has taken part in the negotiations which led to the agreement.
I refer to the post colonial/non-colonial distinction. We have been through this before. Someone who was a terrorist became the prime minister of Israel. I refer to Menachem Begin. He was a terrorist who had belonged to a terrorist organisation. The British Government declared him to be a terrorist but he became a prime minister and we loyally supported him when he was prime minister. I could refer to many other examples: Cyprus, India and so on. In this situation we need to apply a political and a legal sense. From that point of
1012
view I believe that we should reject the amendment because it seeks to make a simple situation on the face of the Bill much too complicated.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: There must be something about the clear mountain air at the summit of the Labour Back Benches which encourages clarity of thinking. I think that what the noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Desai, have said is absolutely right. When the Minister ponders the conundrum raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I commend to him the solution arrived at by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, which seems extremely elegant and straightforward.
Lord Monson: Is not another possibility the insertion of the words,
"For the purposes of this Act"
at the beginning of subsection (8)?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I point out to the Committee that the Secretary of State will, after this Bill is passed, maintain two lists, one of terrorist organisations and one of proscribed organisations. I accept that any organisation may move from being a terrorist organisation to being an ex-terrorist organisation. It can declare a ceasefire and stop being a terrorist organisation. I do not see how it can stop being a terrorist organisation without, in fairness, being "deproscribed". It seems to me that if it is no longer a terrorist organisation, it should no longer be proscribed. The two ought to move in parallel.
It does not seem to me logical that a prisoner—if this Bill is passed in its present form—will have to say, "I am a member of PIRA", for example, in order to be released. In doing so he will admit to a criminal offence of belonging to a proscribed organisation. He should rightly be charged with saying he belongs to a criminal organisation. Everyone will know he has said that because he has been released. In fact I do not believe he will be charged because a later clause in the Bill will prevent any statement he makes to the commission from being used in evidence. Nevertheless, in logic, he certainly ought to be charged. It is odd for him to have to swear that he belongs to the PIRA in order to be released, and to commit a criminal offence in another context when he does so.
Viscount Brookeborough: Is it not quite simple; namely, that once a terrorist stops being a terrorist—he has to say he is not a terrorist, regardless of the organisation he was a member of—irrespective of which organisation he belonged to, he becomes an official member of the political wing of a party through joining that party? On the loyalist side there is the PUP and others, and on the republican side there is Sinn Fein. At present no one is saying that there is anything wrong with being a member of one or the other of those. By declaring you are no longer a terrorist, you are no longer a member of the kind of organisation, either on the loyalist or the republican side, that we are discussing.
Lord Dunleath: My noble kinsman Lord Brookeborough has summed up the matter admirably.

1013
This is really a matter of individuals, not organisations. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Desai, to try to differentiate between organisations as if they are brands of washing powder or butter or margarine, is not the most helpful thing to do. As someone who comes from Northern Ireland, I do not think it will help us in Northern Ireland at this present and difficult time to refer to 1922 or to talk about us as if we were in some way a colonial problem.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: This seems to have been a somewhat confusing debate. To my mind my noble friend Lord Desai got rid of some of the confusion by explaining the key issues. I shall return to those in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, quoted what I said in the Second Reading debate. I do not wish to quote those words again, but I agree with what he said. He quoted me accurately and if he presses me on the matter I shall read out those words again. However, I know he will not press me on that.
I shall deal with some of the points that have been raised and then I shall try to clarify any outstanding issues that may be somewhat confusing. The effect of these amendments to Clause 3 and Clause 9 would be to make it a condition of release and a licence condition that a prisoner was not a supporter of an organisation proscribed under the PTA.
At Second Reading I explained the difference between the identification of an organisation by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as a terrorist organisation, and the proscription of an organisation. That distinction followed directly from the terms of the Good Friday Agreement which stated that prisoners who supported organisations that had not established and were not maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires would not get early release. The Good Friday Agreement did not make the test whether a prisoner supported a proscribed organisation. We should not rewrite the agreement now by adding such a condition.
However, although it is not a licence condition that a prisoner should not be a supporter of a proscribed organisation, it remains the case that to be a member of such an organisation, or to collect funds, or to provide other forms of assistance, are criminal offences. Should a prisoner engage in such activities, he may be prosecuted and imprisoned.
I think it is reasonable to say that we have a distinction which I believe is understood, except that there may be some semantic difficulty in the fact that in this Bill we use the term "terrorist organisation". I believe that the point is more a semantic one than one of substance. What we are doing in this Bill is defining organisations for a particular purpose in order that a prisoner who is a supporter of an organisation that is on ceasefire can be considered for release. However, if he is a supporter of an organisation that is not on ceasefire he may not be considered for early release. That is the nub of the point at issue here.
Furthermore, it seems to me that it is possible that a paramilitary organisation—I use the term in a more general sense—might declare a ceasefire. That would be
1014
an important but not a sufficient condition for someone to say that that paramilitary organisation had ceased to be a terrorist organisation. It seems to me that in order to be clear that an organisation, has ceased to be a paramilitary organisation, it would have to do more than have a ceasefire, but a ceasefire is an essential part of it. For the purposes of the release of prisoners, we have said that that is one of the important conditions; namely, that the organisation is linked to a ceasefire. I think that deals with most of the points that were raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked what was meant by a "complete and unequivocal ceasefire". It is essentially one that is not tactical or sham. Perhaps I may quote from the Prime Minister's Balmoral speech in which he identified the four factors in the Bill. He said that, as the agreement expressly states,
"the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal: an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
The Prime Minister's definition is very clear. It deals with all possible aspects of what ought to be a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.
Finally, even if we were to change the words—and, as I have said, there may be a semantic difficulty more than one of substance—an organisation could still be proscribed but meet the test in Clause 3(8). The Bill is about realities, not words.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Words and their meaning have very important effects in Northern Ireland on many occasions. Indeed, sometimes meanings become very elaborate and apparent only to those who are, as it were, in the swim of Northern Ireland affairs.
To summarise the Minister's remarks, I hope not unfairly, a ceasefire, even defined as widely as the Prime Minister defined it at Balmoral—and I am grateful to the Minister for reinforcing that definition by using it today—is not enough to satisfy the Government as to whether an organisation should be proscribed but is enough to satisfy in relation to the release of prisoners. I am not at all happy about that. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: We now move on to international terrorism. It is well-known that there have been links of various sorts between terrorist organisations in different states. Arms have been acquired, training has been given and so forth. Yet the Government propose to release prisoners without regard to whether they might revert to terrorism for any purpose other than Northern Ireland terrorism.
Some of these prisoners would in other circumstances, as was made clear by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, at Second Reading, be regarded as war criminals. They have links with other organisations which are well-known to the authorities and might well

1015
be prepared to co-operate with them. I am not sure how releasing terrorists on this kind of basis when they can continue with international terrorism squares with the need to protect the community as expressed in the agreement. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I am happy to support the amendment. It is surely a matter of pure common sense. Apart from being immoral, it would surely be the height of folly for any government to tie their hands in advance by pronouncing in effect that some terrorism is less heinous and less unacceptable than other terrorism of equal magnitude merely because it relates to a different part of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned terrorists having links with other terrorist organisations. But it can go further than that. Take the case of a skilled bomb maker who is prepared to sell his skills to the highest bidder—in other words, he is a mercenary. The Provisional IRA may not need his services for the time being. But should he be released if it looks as though he will immediately be recruited by some latter-day equivalent of Black September or the Red Army Faction? Surely not.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the amendment. Thinking back a few decades, we owe it to my late colleague, Enoch Powell, for his service on the Committee on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill at that time to ensure that the Act, which was first purely a Northern Ireland Act and later became a UK Act, was transformed into dealing with international terrorism. Noble Lords who have spoken expressed sound common sense. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
However. I am wondering if tomorrow by any chance an international terrorist were to read the account of this debate in Hansard, he might have some difficulty in deciphering the signal that we are sending.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I have put my name to this amendment for this reason. Although hard cases make bad law, I can imagine the possibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred of somebody who is, say, involved subsequent to his release on licence in another terrorist offence—let us say, planting a bomb on behalf of a Middle Eastern group. He may be consumed with bitterness about Britain. He may be a mercenary. He may for mercenary reasons have adopted that as his permanent way of life. In that situation, a convicted paramilitary who was originally caught planting a bomb, given a life sentence and subsequently released under this legislation, yet who some time later was caught planting another bomb in London,—for example, in collaboration with Middle Eastern terrorists—could appeal against the re-imposition of his initial sentence on the grounds that his most recent offence was connected with Middle Eastern, not Northern Irish, issues.
As the Bill is currently drafted, it would allow such a character—and we cannot exclude the possibility that such people exist—seriously to embarrass the
1016
Government and avoid many years in prison. The Government would do well to consider that. I take the point that emergency legislation of one sort or another deals with other matters such as drug dealing offences. However, we are talking here about somebody who moves on from Northern Irish terrorism to becoming part of international terrorism and about what would then happen to him.
Lord Tebbit: It does not have to be international terrorism. It does not have to be the possibility of the bomb maker going to Spain to help ETA. Up to now, and we all pray that it will continue, the Scottish nationalist movement has been overwhelmingly peaceful. There have been only one or two occasions on which there has been any element of violence. The same is true of the Welsh nationalist movement. The SNP and its equivalent party in Wales, Plaid Cymru, are absolutely and adamantly opposed to any form of violence. But how absurd it would be if one of the people who had been let out was able to continue his trade, if that is the right word, still within the borders of the United Kingdom for a nationalist cause and would not therefore be pulled back in from release. Of course, he would have to be prosecuted first for the crime that he had most recently committed for it to be established that he had broken the terms of his release. But how strange the wording of the Bill is.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In moving Amendment No. 7, I should have added that I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 11 and 25, which make exactly the same point at subsequent points in the Bill.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I had intended to respond to the three amendments, which are grouped together.
The purpose of the amendment is perfectly simple and straightforward; that is, to remove the qualification in three places. The fundamental point is that the Bill deals with, and is intended to deal with, terrorism connected to the affairs of Northern Ireland, to use the phrase in the Bill. That is what the agreement deals with as well. It is not intended to apply to terrorism that has no connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland. There is a good case to be made for a review of international terrorist legislation. That is presently under way in the Home Office. The terms of the Bill include acts of terrorism committed outside Northern Ireland which are connected to the affairs of Northern Ireland. For instance, if an act of terrorism related to the affairs of Northern Ireland were committed in London, Wales or Scotland, that would be caught by the present terms of the Bill. What the Bill does not do, and what it is not intended to do, is to require the commissioners to take account of possible acts of terrorism which have no relation at all to the affairs of Northern Ireland. The example is given of Middle Eastern terrorism.
Amendment No. 7 would require the commissioners to consider whether prisoners would be likely to become concerned in Middle Eastern terrorism, which has no connection at all with Northern Ireland affairs.

1017
Amendment No. 11 would give the Secretary of State the power to identify a terrorist organisation that was engaged in terrorist activity entirely unrelated to Northern Ireland and unconnected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. We do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to extend the remit of the commissioners in this way.
It was mentioned that arms had in the past been acquired by members of the Provisional IRA from other countries, perhaps the Middle East. It was asserted that training was given outside the United Kingdom and that links were continuing. I dissent from none of those propositions. But all those activities would be caught by the Bill in its present form, because the acquisition of arms, the training, the links and possible donation of funds would all be quintessentially and plainly connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
I recognise the concerns that have been expressed by Members of the Committee about international terrorism, but this is not intended to be a Bill or an agreement about anything other than the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The reason for mentioning the training and acquisition of arms was that, just as other terrorists elsewhere in the world have given assistance to the PIRA, and, no doubt, to other organisations, so the flow can be in the other direction. It would be most unfortunate if we found that, through this Bill, we were releasing terrorists who then went off to fight in other battles, whether against the United Kingdom or against other people. We have made the point. At this stage, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) The fifth condition is that the prisoner expresses remorse for the suffering caused by his crime.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 sets out four conditions that must be satisfied, subject to certain qualifications, before a terrorist prisoner can be prematurely released. This amendment would add a fifth condition, or a sixth one, if Amendment No. 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, were to be accepted at a later stage of the Bill. I believe that acceptance of this amendment would make the Bill rather less unjust, and certainly less unpalatable to the victims of terrorist crime and their families, even though it will not and cannot wholly reconcile them to it.
Some Members of the Committee may have read the autobiography, or the condensed version of the autobiography serialised in the Daily Telegraph, of a former IRA terrorist, Sean O'Callaghan, whom I have met. A diminutive, soft-spoken and sensitive-seeming man, he does not look as if he would or could kill a fly. Yet, as an idealistic teenager growing up in a strongly republican milieu in the south west of Ireland, he joined
1018
the IRA, became proficient in weaponry and carried out two murders on behalf of the IRA, one of the victims being a woman.
He felt distinctly uneasy after each of these murders, and this persisting unease, combined with a growing distaste for the callous attitude of many of his comrades, caused him to decide to leave the organisation. After a lapse of time, and as a form of atonement, it would appear, he rejoined the IRA but this time under false colours, as a police informer. In this capacity, and at enormous personal risk, he managed, without arousing suspicion, to foil a number of projected IRA murders and ambushes, including, if his claim is correct—and I see no reason to doubt it—the proposed assassination of the Prince and Princess of Wales at the Dominion Theatre in Tottenham Court Road in the early 1980s. Finally, the danger and strain of leading a double life became too much and he quit the Provisional IRA altogether.
Still feeling guilty about the two murders he had committed many years previously, it would seem, he went of his own accord to the police, confessed, was arrested, was put on trial, was convicted and was duly sentenced to life imprisonment. He served eight years. I am fairly certain that, if he had kept a low profile, he would have escaped prosecution, given the enormously valuable work he had done for the security forces on both sides of the Irish border; but his conscience dictated otherwise and he felt that he deserved to go to prison for a time.
The point of all this is that, by his acts of repentance, he wiped the slate clean, certainly as far as most objective onlookers, like most of us, are concerned, and, one would like to think, as far as the families of his victims are concerned as well. It would be nice to think that such acts of contrition could be widely replicated through legislation, but that is clearly totally unrealistic. The contrition that Amendment No. 9 seeks to have expressed as a quid pro quo for early release is vastly less far reaching, less comprehensive and less demanding. Indeed, there could be no guarantee that the remorse to be expressed would be sincere, although the mere fact of having to express remorse in one's own words will to some extent force prisoners to face the enormity of their crimes, which must be a step in the right direction. But, if this small and admittedly inadequate gesture makes the victims' families feel even 10 per cent. less unhappy about the Bill than they are at present, it would be worthwhile writing the obligation into the Bill. It would also help reconciliation in the more general sense, a highly desirable and necessary objective, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, reminded us. I hope that the Committee and the Government will accept at least the principle of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Monson. It is another very reasonable proposition. Without such an expression of remorse, a released prisoner will be tempted, and may yield to the temptation, to repeat the current practice of taunting the widow or children of the person they have murdered

1019
and, as in some cases known to me formerly as a constituency Member of Parliament, targeting and intimidating the bereaved family for years after the murder was committed.
No reasonable person can resist, or object to, a simple requirement for the commissioners to put to the prisoner/applicant such a simple question. If the prisoner/applicant is sincere in his intention
"to lead a new life"—
words which will not be unfamiliar to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard—how could he decline to answer that simple question? After all, surely that question is central to his request for release.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, on Northern Ireland matters. It is a reasonable proposition. However, given the situation that he recalls from his days in another place, I think it is unreal to ask these people to express remorse, which, if that were the price of freedom, they would undoubtedly do with all sincerity. That would put the Government in an embarrassing situation if the action were to rebound on them. I believe that, if we put this requirement on the face of the Bill, we shall create more problems than we stop. One hopes only that that remorse is forthcoming and sincere. But I do not believe that that is what we have to do at this stage.
The Earl of Longford: I felt that perhaps I could contribute from my own knowledge for a moment. Years ago I met a young man who was only a boy at grammar school. He had a promising life and his father was a headmaster. He was so horrified by the performance of British troops on one occasion that he joined the IRA. He distributed letter bombs. Lots of damage was caused and two people lost their hands.
I got to know the boy very well later. He wrote to everybody to apologise. He did not expect to be released; he just felt bitterly ashamed. Eventually, after 15 years, he was released and has made a good life since. So there are people who, completely out of character, do something terrible and then express remorse. On the other hand, I never forget to remind prisoners—people who have done terrible things of whom I see quite a few—of what President Nixon said when he was disgraced. He said, "I have screwed everything up. I have let everyone down. I am not going to grovel". There must always be that little compromise. I simply wanted to contribute to the debate from my own knowledge.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: This is an interesting point. It was particularly emphasised at Second Reading both by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who moved the amendment, and by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. It was also raised in another place where the Minister of State described a similar proposal as "unnecessary, unfortunate and unsound". That seemed to me to be a bit over the top.
1020
The Minister seemed to think that prisoners might suppose that an undertaking they gave to be on their best behaviour would somehow absolve them from meeting the other criteria. That cannot be a serious worry. It would be a confirmation of the criteria for release rather than a substitution of different criteria.
Nevertheless, I have doubts about the amendment. Remorse can certainly be genuine and the case of Sean O'Callaghan is a good one in that context—as no doubt is the case cited by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. But the question is whether remorse should be a condition of release and that is the central difficulty. I have no doubt that if the amendment were accepted it would make everyone—certainly me—feel much better about releasing terrorists. But perhaps my noble friend Lady Denton may be right in that it is difficult to make it a condition of release, which is what the amendment proposes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I share the same instinctive sympathy for the arguments put forward. However, remorse is not something to be required by Act of Parliament; it derives from a moral imperative. Indeed, when I was listening with some care to what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, it seemed to me that he illustrated that point abundantly. He said, in reference to Sean O'Callaghan, that he acted in the way he did because his conscience dictated it to him, not an Act of Parliament.
The noble Lord said that actions might wipe the slate clean. I doubt that. If there is genuine remorse, that would be a moral act for those who had behaved criminally and disgracefully. It might—it is not for me to speculate; it is an impertinent intrusion into other people's pain—be some consolation to some families; I do not know. But something required as of rote has no moral worth and, indeed, might reasonably be regarded as insulting.
I pay attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said. On different sides of this Chamber she and I debated the problems of Northern Ireland over many years and I always pay careful attention to what she says. I believe that she is right on this occasion.
I share the thought behind the amendment. I honour the thought behind the amendment. But it is not something we want in an Act. If a man is remorseful, he should be remorseful and express it, not be made to parrot out a formula in an Act of Parliament.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Molyneaux of Killead for supporting me. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, suggests that if a prisoner expressed remorse, was released in consequence and committed another terrorist crime after his release, the Government would be embarrassed. But the Government will be embarrassed anyway if a terrorist prisoner re-offends, no matter whether or not he previously expressed remorse. Therefore, that argument against the amendment is not particularly powerful.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, conceded that the amendment would make everyone feel better, "but", and then brought forward objections. But is not the whole

1021
point to make people feel better, particularly the victims of terrorist atrocities? Making them feel better is valuable and something towards which we should aim. It would make people in Northern Ireland who are unhappy with the agreement feel better. That must be desirable. People on this side of the water would feel better, too.
In relation to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I concede that enforced repentance is not as morally worthy as voluntary repentance. But surely it is better than nothing. It sends some kind of signal. Obviously, we cannot for the moment agree on that and I shall have to reflect on what has been said.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he believe that the victims of this prisoner's crime will believe the expression of remorse?
Lord Monson: There is a chance that they will; the remorse may be genuine. One noble Lord this afternoon talked of meeting prisoners from both the loyalist and republican sides who were genuinely repentant, or partly repentant, for their crimes. There is a reasonable chance that some of the remorse expressed would be genuine. I believe it would be helpful, though that is just an opinion. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("may specify only") and insert ("shall specify").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 10 raises a simple but important point. It seeks to take out from the second line of Clause 3(8) the words, "may specify only" and insert "shall specify".
As drafted, subsection (8) gives to the Secretary of State a discretion as to whether or not to specify an organisation as a terrorist organisation even in a situation where she believes, first, that the organisation is, concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging it, and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.
I fully accept that it will be for the Secretary of State to decide, on the basis of information placed before her—much of which will be from the security services and her security advisers—whether or not a particular organisation is concerned in terrorism and whether or not any such organisation is not maintaining a "complete and unequivocal ceasefire". Subsection (9) sets out on the face of the Bill the matters to which the Secretary of State shall have regard in addressing the issue which arises for her consideration under subsection (8)(b). It is set out helpfully, though possibly the use of the words "in particular", as may be discussed later, are a less helpful part of that subsection.
In relation to the discretion in the first part of subsection (8), the Bill is silent as to what criteria are relevant. The Bill gives the Secretary of State no guidance whatever as to the circumstances in which she should specify an organisation or those in which she may decide not to.
Having considered very carefully what is set out in the Belfast agreement, and in particular what is set out in paragraph 2 on page 25 of the agreement, it seems to me that there is an argument that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a particular organisation is concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland and if she is also satisfied that such an organisation has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, she should not have a discretion as to whether or not to specify such an organisation as a terrorist organisation for the purposes of the Bill. In considering her duties under the PTA it may be that other considerations may be applied or may be relevant. But, for the purposes of this Bill, it seems to me that there is an argument for saying that there should not be such a discretion.
If the discretion is to remain in the Bill it would lay the Secretary of State open to all manner of pressures upon her to refrain from certifying a particular terrorist organisation. Those pressures might be political and, in certain instances, they might be worse than that. They might in fact take the form of threats of terrorist violence or terrorist violence itself by some offshoot of the organisation concerned.
If one turns to the terms of paragraph 2 of the section of the agreement headed "Prisoners" one reads:
"Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements".
There is no suggestion in that paragraph, or in any other section of the agreement dealing with the issue of prisoner release, that either the British Government or the Irish Government should have a discretion as to whether or not to water down what is set out in the sentence that I have quoted. On the contrary, when one reads the sentence, it is, I believe, quite unequivocal that if a prisoner is affiliated to an organisation which has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, that prisoner will not benefit from the arrangements for early release. In those circumstances, it appears that this matter might merit some further consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Tebbit: I am a little puzzled by the effects of this subsection. As I read it, it seems that the Secretary of State could quite lawfully, if the provision is enacted in this form, believe that an organisation is concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire and yet be free not to specify. That is the problem here. The Secretary of State could think that such an organisation is still involved with terrorism and has not established a

1023
complete ceasefire and yet refuse to specify in that way. Therefore, I am inclined at the moment to support the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend.
Viscount Brookeborough: I, too, am inclined to support the amendment. If one looks at paragraph 2 of the agreement and reads a little further one sees that the last sentence states:
"The situation in this regard will be kept under review".
I am not sure that the situation with regard to releasing people who may one day be supporters of a group still involved in terrorism should ever be reviewed. It seems quite simple that unless that group is on ceasefire they cannot be released. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will explain how the situation in that regard will be kept under review.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I, too, have great difficulty with this clause. The key to this part of the Bill is to be found in the passage that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has just identified. It is paragraph 2 of the section headed "Prisoners". It states:
"Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements".
There is a need for the Minister to indicate what kind of hypothetical situation could justify the failure to specify an organisation where the two tests set out in subsection (8)(a) and (b) are not fulfilled; in other words, where an organisation may yet be concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland or in promoting or encouraging it and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. If those tests are not fulfilled, I, for the moment, cannot imagine what circumstances could justify the Secretary of State in not finding that a prisoner was affiliated to an organisation which had not established or was not maintaining a complete and completely unequivocal ceasefire. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could perhaps later, or better still now, fill that gap.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I said at the beginning of the debate that from these Benches we would not support things which sought to go further than the agreement. However, having listened to what noble Lords have said, and having studied, as we have been directed to by several noble Lords, paragraph 2 on page 25, I have been persuaded by the debate and should like to ask the Government why they will not replace the word "may" with "shall".
Lord Dubs: I have listened to the arguments put forward. This amendment was considered in another place but was not accepted there. The Bill quite rightly gives the Secretary of State the power to identify organisations that do not meet the test in Clause 3(8). That this should be expressed as a power is correct and is consistent with the fact that it is the Secretary of State's belief in the matters specified in subsection (8) which determines whether an organisation is or is not specified.
1024
Your Lordships will understand that the Secretary of State will be careful to use that power in the appropriate circumstances. As such, there is no value in placing the Secretary of State under such a duty. Indeed, it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not take this responsibility very seriously. It is, after all, an absolutely fundamental part of the whole Bill. I believe that the element of discretion which is given to her so that she can exercise her responsibilities fairly and properly is a reasonable one.
Subsection (10) makes provision for the Secretary of State to keep under review the organisations identified under Clause 3(8). That was added at the request of the UUP to make the review process clear. The Secretary of State has shown herself capable over her period in office of making difficult decisions. After all, in the past she has thrown parties out of the talks when she has been under pressure from others to keep them in. The Secretary of State takes a very robust attitude to her responsibilities and I am quite sure that she would give effect to them fairly and properly, as expressed by noble Lords here. But I do not believe it is necessary to go as far as to make the amendment that has been suggested.
Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We do not have to doubt the ability or the integrity of the Secretary of State of the day. After all, persons change. Ministers come and go. The Secretary of State is not specified here as Ms. Mo Mowlam; it is the office which is held. Therefore, the personality of the present holder of that office is irrelevant to the matter. Indeed, as I understand it and if I recollect rightly from my own experience in government, if the Secretary of State were to be incapacitated for some reason, another Secretary of State could carry out this function. I recollect being somewhat surprised to discover that one day many years ago when, as Secretary of State for Employment, I was asked to sign an order prohibiting a suspected terrorist from entering Great Britain. When I observed, "That is a bit outside my responsibility, isn't it?", I was reminded that the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State.
We cannot accept what the noble Lord has said. I would be grateful if he would give us an example of when the Secretary of State would not wish to specify an organisation which was behaving in this way. What would be the disadvantage of putting the matter specifically as my noble friend has suggested? I cannot conceive what it would be. Indeed, the Minister said that he cannot conceive such a situation either so why do we not make the words in the Bill match those that he has uttered?
7.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I suggested that the Secretary of State would exercise her responsibilities properly under the Bill and that there would be no question of anyone feeling that she was not doing that. Given her track record, I believe that that is a reasonable conclusion to reach, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbitt, has more or less agreed. I am suggesting that it is not necessary to go as far in the Bill as the amendment proposes.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I do not believe that the Minister has faced up to the crucial point which lies

1025
behind this amendment which was focused by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. What could justify a decision not to specify an organisation if the Secretary of State was satisfied that it was concerned in terrorism and had not established and was not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire? No one suggests for a moment that the holder of the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the present time has not provided a great service to the people of these islands. She will no doubt face up to difficult decisions which may lie ahead. However, this Bill will be in force for a number of years. Initially it covers a two-year period. As my noble friend Lord Tebbitt has reminded us, the Secretary of State can be any Secretary of State.
I do not intend to press this amendment tonight, but I hope that the Minister will think very carefully about this matter. He has not provided any explanation of the circumstances which would justify a decision not to specify; nor has he given any reason why my amendment would in any way frustrate the agreement which, time and time again in these debates, we are reminded cannot be departed from in any way. I make it clear that this is a matter to which I suspect a number of noble Lords will return at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill be resumed not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Waste Minimisation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Tourism in the North West
7.34 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what new help they are considering to promote inbound tourism to the North West.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, most of us think, subjectively, that where we come from is very special. Many even think "There's no place like home". In the case of north-west England, where I come from, it must be true, for millions of more objective people from elsewhere think the same.
Inbound tourism to the North West is today a major and fast growing sector of the region's economy. It provides at least as many jobs as the defence, aerospace, automotive, textile and clothing sectors. Tourists also create a huge number of jobs in other sectors. On the north-west coast 40 per cent. of the jobs tourism creates are outside the tourist industry.
The region's growing popularity is proof of its attractions to tourists. In addition to the coastal resorts, they include not only the undoubted natural beauty of the nearby Lakes and Peak District but also the "paradise", as it was royally described, of the Trough of Boland. Other attractions include our rich cultural heritage; our fine universities and cathedrals; the North West's historic role as the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution and of movements for social improvement; and its more modern shrines like the set for "Coronation Street" at Granada Studios.
Among the movements for social improvement founded in the region there is one, the Co-operative Movement, in which I have an interest to declare. I do so with pride as former President of the Co-operative Congress, the highest honour the British Co-operative Movement can confer. The CWS, based like other major co-operative institutions in Manchester, is today the biggest enterprise in the North West, with its increased turnover in 1997 of £3.025 billion. The working people who pioneered the movement in Rochdale in 1844 inspired a world venture that today comprises 700 million co-operative members in over 70 countries, all of which have contacts with the movement here.
The other interest I must declare is that I first stood for Parliament in Liverpool, with my noble friend Lord Sefton as my admirable election agent, leaving me with an enduringly high regard for that city, before serving for 33 years as a Member of Parliament for Manchester, my native city. Thus some might conclude that my view of the comparative merits of the North West is not wholly unbiased.
The region's towns and cities each have their attractions for particular groups of tourists, and Liverpool and Manchester of course have commercial, cultural and sporting links worldwide. Manchester will host the next and, given due support from the Government to bridge a funding gap, the best-ever Commonwealth Games, while Liverpool, birthplace of the Beatles and home of one of Britain's two most successful football teams, hosts the world's most exciting horse race every year. International exhibition and conference business also makes an important contribution to tourist income for both of our major cities.
Tourism is the second largest source of employment after retailing in the North West. Its growth potential is far greater than that of the traditional manufacturing industries and makes it one of our most important means of economic regeneration. If with the Government's help we can further increase inbound tourism, we shall benefit both the region and the national economy, to which it already contributes £25 billion a year.
To assist this burgeoning industry we must make the North West more accessible to international visitors. Inevitably a high proportion of overseas visitors want to

1027
see the attractions of the capital. That provides competition enough for regional tourism ambitions without the additional challenge of less than satisfactory access to regional destinations.
Compared with just 13 per cent. for the North West, the latest figures available show that 63 per cent. of overseas visitors came to London. But the growth of inbound tourism to London is not without its problems. Ever-increasing congestion at the London airports makes it all the more urgent for the Government to spread the benefits of tourism more evenly across the country by improving access to the regions.
The North West has so much to offer, but for overseas visitors to see and enjoy it they need direct access to the region, free of the hassle of transfers over the London airports. This would ease pressure on Heathrow and Gatwick and enable the North West Tourist Board—and such bodies as England's North Country and Marketing Manchester—to promote the region to much greater effect and compete on more equal terms with London and tourist destinations across the globe.
It is much to the advantage of the North West that it has in Manchester one of the world's best airports. Over 16 million passengers a year pass through it and that figure is forecast to reach 30 million within the next decade. Much to my delight, my right honourable friend Tom Clarke MP, the Minister for tourism, visited Manchester Airport recently. He heard in detail about its potential for increasing inbound tourism and the pace of economic regeneration in the North West. It was a most timely visit and I am extremely glad he was able also to meet John East, who so ably chairs the board of the renowned Hallé Orchestra, another of our tourist attractions.
Since Tom Clarke's visit the Government have made two welcome announcements that create further opportunities for Manchester Airport to develop to its fullest potential. First, the UK's bilateral treaty partners were informed that the capacity and frequency of direct international air services into regional airports would no longer be linked with issues concerning access to London's airports in bilateral negotiations, provided that UK airlines have the opportunity to operate on the same routes. While this falls short of the full Open Skies policy for which the regional airports continue to press, it is an important move in the right direction.
The second announcement, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, allows Manchester and some other regional airports to fund their development through borrowing on the strength of their balance sheets. This was a major step forward for which I hope my noble friend, who also deals with Treasury matters, will thank himself for me most warmly! The constraints suffered by Manchester and other local authority-owned airports in terms of public sector borrowing requirements were pushing the more successful airports into the private sector for no good reason. Happily now Manchester Airport can retain its present status and focus on regional benefit, while being free to act in a more commercial way so far as its funding is concerned.
Much credit is due to the Government for these announcements. But there is more they can do to enable the major regional airports to make their regions more attractive to tourists. They should develop a proper methodology for assessing the regional economic impact of air services and continue to roll back the barriers to genuinely free international access to regional airports. Specifically, they should allow airlines providing direct international flights into Manchester and other regional airports to fly on to third countries, carrying revenue passengers between each of the destinations served. This is the so-called "fifth freedom" of the air. It would increase the viability of services and add significantly to inbound tourism.
Even more importantly, the Government should allow Manchester Airport a further commercial freedom, one well justified by its pivotal role in the regional economy. The freedom we seek is to allow the airport company to diversify, to pursue its own commercial objectives without being bound narrowly to the operation of the airport itself.
As of now, the airport is barred from this normal business activity because of limitations on its local authority owners—a matter of vires. This has significant implications. Your Lordships will be aware of the impending loss of duty-free trade generated by travel between member states of the European Union. The British Airports Authority, which owns London's airports, can hedge against this loss of income by diversification. It undertakes property development, for example, and invests in airports abroad. But for Manchester such action is impossible because of its more limited powers. And in the case of projects to improve surface access to the airport, the airport company is often relegated to a back-seat role because it cannot put money into them on a commercial basis.
Freedom to invest in such projects would be of immense value to the airport and the North West. It would also further promote inbound tourism by speedier access to all parts of the north from the airport. Growth at the airport creates new employment of the order of 1,000 on-airport jobs for every 1 million more passengers. More inbound tourists from more nations around the world will mean increased spending in the region, sustaining jobs, creating new ones and allowing more investment to make it more attractive to its visitors and the UK as a whole more appealing to overseas tourists.
I know the Government will want to respond positively to the points I have raised and that my noble friend, with his customarily instinctive helpfulness, will do all he can, informed by this debate, to work with us to make the North West an ever more accessible, attractive and welcoming destination for inbound tourists.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I share his enthusiasm for the North West and its wide range of attractions. The more people we can get there, the better

1029
for everybody. I should like to follow the noble Lord, first, by supporting his views about the importance of Manchester Airport. The implementation of his well put suggestions would benefit the airport enormously.
It has been estimated that by the year 2000 tourism will be the world's biggest industry. The North West is an important economic area of the United Kingdom and it is therefore important that it should benefit from that growing industry and that it should have available the resources and opportunities to allow it to grow with that world demand. The North West has many other advantages, but they might be even greater if a little attention were paid to them.
Better and more effective co-ordination of the North West's very different tourism attractions is needed. I am thinking of attractions as diverse as Blackpool and the Lake District. Ever-increasing traffic is a problem, caused in part by the growth of day trips. The pattern of tourism is always changing. When the RDA is established, perhaps it will be instrumental in achieving a more organised approach.
There is certainly a lack of co-operation between local tourist and planning authorities when developing and promoting tourist areas. My own city of Chester has encountered considerable problems in trying to co-ordinate an approach to enable the city to take advantage of tourism opportunities while trying to meet some of the planning pressures encountered by our older cities. During my period in your Lordships' House, I have pressed both governments on this and have asked them to look more seriously at the implications of planning decisions because it appears that the planning authorities do not always consider the general well being of an area.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, the North West lacks a national "must visit" tourist destination. This would raise important planning issues, but the North West of England needs one major tourist attraction. That would make marketing the region a lot easier. At the moment, our attractions are diverse and we have to market a range of attractions and activities, including Blackpool, the Lake District and the City of Chester. One major attraction of world renown would have a major impact on what we can achieve in the region.
We also need effective transport planning. The North West has very good motorway links, but we do not have such good links to the areas that the tourists actually want to visit. We need greater understanding of how we can tackle overcrowding on our side roads which are used by tourists.
It is of interest that tourists do not visit as they once did. At one time, a tourist would visit Blackpool for a week; now he visits for a day. As a result, the ability of a town to offer the right facilities to tourists has changed dramatically. Transport authorities need to be much more aware of the changes. Some 38,000 jobs in the rural areas in the North West of England depend on the tourist industry. This House has had many debates on the future of the rural economy and the requirement for greater growth. The tourist industry can be one of the best providers of new job opportunities within rural
1030
areas and should be considered very carefully by the Government particularly when developing their rural policy.
There is speculation that the Government may scrap the English Tourist Board. It would be a very bad thing if that happened. Perhaps the Minister can refer to that matter in winding up the debate.
Competition from abroad is now fuelled very much by the strength of sterling. No doubt as time goes on this will change. Today the world-wide holidaymaker has much higher expectations of quality. What we could have got away with at one time is no longer acceptable. If the tourist board or a similar organisation is to continue it must try constantly to raise standards and provide what the public want.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has referred to the Commonwealth Games. However, one is considering not only those games but a major festival of academia and other cultural activities that take place at the same time. The promotion of such major events which take place not only in Manchester but throughout the whole of the North West and the provision of resources and opportunities in that area will be very important. I hope that the Government will take heed of what is said in this short debate.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, reference has been made to the possible closure of the English Tourist Board. I do not propose to dwell upon that. I am quite sure that the Government are alive to what needs to be done to promote tourism. If they have in mind better arrangements, we await them with interest. As a director of Jarvis Hotels, with many hotels in the North West and a total of 70 in this country, including Planet Hollywood, and theme restaurants that employ 700 people in the Leicester Square area alone, I am well aware of the importance of having good facilities and interesting things for people to see and do.
I am much struck by what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, about the promotion of a major attraction in the North West. During my six years as chairman of the English Tourist Board I have visited the North West on a regular basis. One of its marvellous attractions to which I draw particular attention is Blackpool. Blackpool is a major attraction, but it requires modernisation. Blackpool needs better conference and exhibition facilities. It is untrue that the Labour Party has left Blackpool and will not be holding any more conferences there. We shall skip one year only. We shall be there this year. I am sure that I speak for everyone on this side of the House when I say that we look forward to being in Blackpool this year. But I respectfully suggest that it is time to consider whether some contemporary conference and exhibition facilities should be developed further to improve that extremely important seaside resort.
It is essential to raise standards throughout the country, not merely in Blackpool, and that depends on getting tourists into the regions. More tourists mean greater profits; greater profits mean reinvestment; and reinvestment means new investment. That is what is

1031
required throughout the country. We also need to raise the standards of the personnel who serve visitors. Some are still a little gruff and unfriendly. I was not surprised to read today in the newspapers that British Airways had some new ideas about how its cabin staff should respond to please visitors. That must be done in all areas of tourism.
We must also be sensitive to the fact that not everyone welcomes tourists. I refer to my experiences in Oxford. I have said in this Chamber before that Oxford is schizophrenic about tourists. Tourists provide very meagre economic benefits and irritate residents by creating a good deal of congestion without a reward. I hope that those who are responsible for tourism in both central and local government will keep a constant eye on that problem. That applies particularly to London. We must try to get more tourists out of London. Surely, tourists who come here on second visits should make London simply an entry point for the purposes of seeing the rest of the beauty and interests of our wonderful country.
This is the time of devolution for Scotland, Wales and London. We must also be cautious about wasting public money. Inadvertently, we may create a good deal of duplication. For example, if we asked the British Tourist Authority to do some of the work that had been done by the English Tourist Board it might create suspicion. The tourist boards for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and perhaps even London might want to establish their own branches overseas in the belief that they could do the job better than the British Tourist Authority. That would be very unfortunate and we must guard against it.
We have been hearing about how well tourism is doing. One in five of all new jobs is created in tourism. Between 1.7 million and 2.2 million people are employed in tourism. People argue about the correct figures. There is a slight decline in inward tourism. For the first time since records were kept we have witnessed the largest quarterly deficit in the tourism account. There is some important work to be done. Therefore, it is timely that the Government appear to be reviewing this matter, although it is being done in the name of the public expenditure round. Thank goodness that that information will, we hope, be available next week and that the sword of Damocles which is now suspended over the head of the English Tourist Board will be removed and the difficulty resolved one way or another. In any sector of commerce there is nothing worse than uncertainty. Uncertainty is plaguing tourism at the moment.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, those of us with roots in the North West are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for giving the House this opportunity to encourage the growth of the tourist industry in that region. Tourism and the jobs that go with it are absolutely vital for the future prosperity of an area that has long suffered decline.
I felt it most important to add my name to the list of speakers this evening in order to give some balance, not in the party political sense but in relation to the famous
1032
rivalry between Manchester men and Liverpool gentlemen. I had not appreciated that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, began his political career in Liverpool, as I did. Liverpool was part of my territorial designation. I was Member of the European Parliament for Liverpool following the first direct elections in 1979. At that time I was very much involved in a number of major European Community-funded infrastructure projects which have helped tourism in Liverpool and the whole area. For example, in 1984 we had the International Garden Festival. We have had the refurbishment of the Albert Docks and the opening-up of the South Docks which have had such a tremendous environmental impact. On one occasion—it may have been the end of the Tall Ships race which was a glamorous occasion for the Mersey or when we were extending the Maritime Museum—the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, visited as chairman of the English Tourist Board. He was helpful and encouraging.
As many noble Lords will be aware, I am a trustee of the National Museums and Galleries of Merseyside. It is one of my ongoing commitments to the area. We have had the vexed subject of entry charges to museums. We struggled not to introduce entry charges, but were eventually obliged to do so. One of my arguments was that the support for museums in London was misguided, because London had so many tourists who could well have paid their way, as they have to pay their way in their own countries. Areas such as the North West should have had more support from the Government. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to that view. Nevertheless, it is important to make the point yet again.
The museums and galleries of Merseyside are a great attraction for tourists. The Maritime Museum is the only Merchant Navy maritime museum. It has a special theme area on Irish emigration which is important for those seeking their roots. There is also the Museum of Atlantic Slavery with which the late Lord Pitt of Hampstead had so much to do. There is also the Walker Gallery. The department responsible for the heritage did a very good job in supporting the Royal Academy's recent regional art exhibition here in London. I have met a number of people who went to that exhibition and who saw paintings from the Walker Gallery in Liverpool and from Manchester's gallery. They said, "I really must go and see the collection on the spot". That was a good move.
There are those, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, who visit Liverpool regularly on a Beatles pilgrimage. There are great sporting events. We have two famous football teams as well as the Grand National course. What about the Grand National? It is an event which takes place on two days a year. The course is virtually unused for the rest of the year. Something should be done to make it a permanent sporting site and a useful centre.
We do our best with conferences. The two Liverpool universities are useful and helpful in promoting conference-type tourism. There is much more that we can do on the theme of education. There is the traditional tourism, which has been referred to, of miles and miles of golden sands at Southport and Crosby which I remember visiting as a child.

1033
It is clear, as my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton said, that there should be more co-ordination with local authorities as well as central government. I hope that there will be support from the Government for the latest project which is to encourage more ships back to the Mersey. There is a plan to encourage tourist ships to visit the docks in Liverpool. Some dredging of the Mersey is already taking place. It would be helpful if masses of tourists arrived who were based on their tourist ships. They could visit Liverpool and the wider region. I also support my noble friend's suggestion that there should be some major annual event.
I hope that we shall hear what plans the Government have for fitting tourist organisations—in particular, the successful Mersey partnership—into their proposed regional development agency. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Macclesfield: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may intervene. I wish to refer to the possible demise of the English Tourist Board. I would welcome that if we could promote England on a regional basis. I shall not repeat the assets of the North West of which we are already aware. I have experience of arguing for the Olympics to come to Manchester. The tourist board's portrayal abroad of England as traditional, with its guardsmen and its old empire and imperial background, oriented on London, undoubtedly attracted some tourists for this country, but it was counter-productive for the many tourists who might have come here had we shown some of the country's other assets.
We have heard about Liverpool. The last view of mainland Europe for the ancestors of many people was Liverpool docks. That is important for people returning to trace their ancestry. I do not need to elaborate on the Lake District, William Wordsworth and so forth. Chester is a Roman city. I would welcome a move towards regional promotion, because the North West has a great deal to offer. What it offers is different from what other regions offer.
8.6 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, when speaking in your Lordships' House I am always struck by the knowledge and experience displayed. This evening has been just one such occasion. From these Benches, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for this opportunity to discuss tourism in the regions. Perhaps I may also offer the apologies of my noble friend Lord McNally, who was unavoidably detained and so is unable to be in his place this evening. I regret especially that he is not here, because he has a great knowledge of the North West, having been a Member of the other place for a constituency in the North West. I was relying upon him to speak with a north western flavour from these Benches, so that I might permit myself to speak on a broader regional theme.
As my noble friend is not here, I shall unfortunately have to confess and display my ignorance of the North West. I think I have only been to any part of the
1034
North West three times in my life. Once was to stay at the Chester Grosvenor, which was a splendid hotel, and I very much enjoyed my visit; once was a day trip to Blackpool to speak to the British Incoming Tour Operators Association; and the third was a visit to the Granada studios in Manchester to speak at the World Travel and Tourism Council. They were at least worthy causes in aid of tourism, but that, I am afraid, is the extent of my knowledge.
In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, I shall look at the problem of the promotion of regional tourism for all the UK regions. We can all agree on the benefits of tourism. I have had the privilege of speaking on tourism on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. There are many noble Lords here tonight who have spoken in those same debates. We usually all agree, pretty well, on the benefits of tourism. The noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, gave the figures. We know about the number of jobs and the economic benefits. However, in more and more of your Lordships' debates we now look at the other side of the tourism balance sheet, which has also been mentioned tonight; that is, some of the downsides of tourism. The noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, mentioned them in regard to Oxford. We need now a thought-through planned strategic development of tourism within the framework and objective of sustainable growth. The case for that is becoming much more widely accepted.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke mainly on accessibility and transport, with particular regard to air travel. I shall not touch on that. I agree on the necessity for accessibility and I would underline the case for rail accessibility. A great many people come to the North West from other parts of the UK. We must not forget the domestic tourist. That is an important part of the tourism mix in all regions. Without doubt, an improvement in the rail infrastructure would be helpful.
We need to look at two aspects of tourism in the regions: first, organisation; and, secondly, funding. As regards organisation, we have touched this evening on the potential abolition of the English Tourist Board. There was an article in the Financial Times today. On these Benches we believe there is a clear answer: tourism is a devolved issue and the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland assembly will deal with tourism. We therefore believe it appropriate that that parliament and those assemblies should deal with international and domestic tourism. Accordingly, the organisation whose role should be questioned is the British Tourist Authority. We propose a merger of the ETB and the BTA, calling it the English tourist board. I underline the fact that we would maintain the same level of funding of the two organisations in that one organisation. Each of the devolved countries and the remaining mother country would be responsible for its own promotion. I suspect that as a consequence all four of the tourist boards would quickly come up with a mechanism for promoting Britain. However, the fairest way is to allow them to do so under their own steam.
The second area of organisation is at local level. It is sad that so few people in tourism take part in local tourist board activities. There is clearly an opportunity

1035
there for considerable development. It is at the local level that the tactical delivery of tourism is so important. I am concerned about the RDAs. They clearly could work well but they are not accountable to local government. They are accountable to central government but have no proposed elected representatives. I am wary of any body which has no elected representatives.
I have mentioned that we should put together funding of the BTA and the ETB in one central organisation. A figure quoted recently is the spend per head. I totally disagree with that. There are more people in England than in the other countries. Therefore whatever figure is chosen, there will be a greater spend per head in the devolved countries than in England. One could say to noble Lords opposite that possibly it should be from each according to his means; and to each according to his needs, but that might be somewhat Old Labour. I move rapidly on.
Clearly to allow each devolved government to spend its own budget is the appropriate way forward. Rather than invidious comparisons between nations, we should allow them to do that. I urge the Minister not to use reorganisation of tourism structure to achieve an unnecessary and extremely small saving on funding which is so important to tourism.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for introducing this interesting debate at a moment when tourism in general is highly topical.
Recently the Select Committee in another place on Culture, Media and Sport castigated the Government for neglecting tourism despite the lip service paid to its importance by Ministers and officials. When we were in government we were criticised by many for bringing under one department heritage, museums and the arts together with tourism. Some thought that tourism would dominate the department to such an extent that everything would be treated as a tourist attraction. That did not happen. However, tourism does not feature now even in the unpronounceable acronym which designates the department. This is symptomatic of the low priority that tourism is granted.
I agree with the Select Committee of the DCMS that there is the strong,
"impression that tourism is viewed as the Cinderella of the Department".
It is greatly neglected, notwithstanding the economic importance of the sector. Contributing 5 per cent. to GDP, it is the third largest British industry. Britain as a destination ranks fifth in the world tourist market and is growing, as my noble friend Lord Wade so rightly said. It attracted 26 million visitors last year whose main reason for coming here is our great heritage and traditions. If I were the marketing director of Britain Inc, I should be very pleased, though not complacent, with the success of our product. Furthermore, on the basis of those facts I should be very cautious about launching a rebranding exercise across the board.
1036
Britain does not need a new image, nor mega PR stunts like the Millennium Experience. It needs an enlightened Government to act at a number of levels, supporting specific tourist attractions. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Hooper, in the North West the Tate in Liverpool, nearby the National Museum of Photography in Bradford and the Royal Armories in Leeds have contributed to raise the profiles of those cities. For instance, the Royal Armories attracts 60 per cent. of its visitors from outside Leeds and its immediate surroundings and 9 per cent. from abroad.
In Trafford, Daniel Liebeskind's project for the Imperial War Museum rivals in daring and beauty Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. It may fail to find the necessary funds as a direct consequence of the changes to the National Lottery rules. I urge the Minister to press the Government to back this excellent scheme, in particular as it contributes to the regeneration of a large derelict area.
Beyond those specific measures the Government must do more to get the right framework in which tourism can flourish. The publication of a new strategy for tourism is being postponed, and in addition there is great uncertainty about future funding. Will the regional tourist boards lose the 20 per cent. from the English Tourist Board if the latter is to be abolished? What alternative arrangements are being made? Will funding be channelled via the Regional Development Authority? If so, what role will the RTB play in it?
Other than creating uncertainty—so well stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Montague—the Government have initiated yet another review: tourism towards sustainability, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned. Sustainability is the panacea of the moment, the politically correct policy par excellence. In the consultation paper, the Government put forward too rosy a picture. It sounds like a matchmaker extolling the virtues of marriage to young naive couples. In a number of cases tourism and the environment can be married successfully, as in the effective traffic management techniques adopted in Chester. In other cases, marriage can be made to work, for instance, through incentive schemes for the industry such as the Green Lantern. But sometimes it is not possible. In such cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said on another occasion, "conservation should always prevail". Will the Government acknowledge this?
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, concentrated many of his remarks on Manchester airport, and quite rightly so, as airports are the main gateway for incoming tourists. Gateways, however, are only one facet of a transport network which helps tourism, and sustainable tourism in particular. We should like to add our voice to the chorus calling for an integrated transport policy. But how long will we have to wait for it? Will it address the transport requirements of sustainable tourism?
Furthermore, how long will it take for the Government to understand that more regulation is damaging? We understood the significance of regulation or deregulation. For example, we removed the prohibition on 16 and 17 year-old apprentices working in bars. Most importantly for all business, and tourism

1037
in particular, we negotiated an opt-out to the social chapter. By signing up to it, this Government have opened the floodgates to a raft of legislation. Some is highly damaging, like the part-time workers directive and proposals for fixed term workers' treatment, as well as compulsory consultation in establishments with over 50 employees. Will the Minister give assurances that the Government will build flexibility in implementing measures of the existing directives and that they will oppose the current proposals?
We are all aware that one of the most important factors today discouraging tourism is the strength of the pound. The social chapter, together with the introduction of the minimum wage and the working time directive, are likely to increase the industry's costs and make it less competitive. It is impossible to quantify exactly by how much, but inevitably higher costs will affect inbound tourism, in particular in areas such as the North West.
The tourism industry is thus constrained by a strong pound and by environmental as well as social policy imperatives. In these circumstances, are the Government prepared to look at tax measures to help tourism? In particular, are they prepared to reduce VAT on accommodation? I look forward to the Minister's answers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for introducing this short debate. He has a record of distinguished service to his city and his country; now, quite clearly, to his region as well. We are very grateful to him.
The Question on the Order Paper is what new help the Government are considering for inbound tourism to the North West. It is necessary that I address that question although the tone of the debate generally—with the exception, as so often, of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings—was very constructive and laudatory about what the North West has to offer. I am very much in sympathy with the debate in that sense.
When we look at what help the Government can give to tourism we have to be clear about the different roles of government and the private sector. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that governments can deal with major structural failures in industry, be it tourism or any other. What a government can do is provide help with redressing market failures. Above all, they can provide co-ordination, standards and support structures for the tourist activities and accommodation, which, fundamentally, have to be provided by the private sector.
I am pleased that we are making progress on accommodation standards. The new unified accommodation standards are moving ahead and will be publicised within the next two to three years, having been agreed by all the relevant organisations. I accept that we have a responsibility for the transport issues, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, among others, referred. We cannot provide accommodation and we cannot provide more than a part of tourist attractions.
1038
I shall briefly run through what we think the Government can do. Too much is made of the structures of government support for tourism. An enthusiastic government can work to help tourism whatever the structures. I am not too worried about the comments that have been made about the English Tourist Board. We had a short debate at Question Time about this and I made it clear that there is nothing I can say in advance of the comprehensive spending review. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that whatever happens to the English Tourist Board and other tourist organisations will not in any way diminish the high priority which we give to tourism. My noble friend Lord Montague of Oxford said he would await with interest the conclusions of the comprehensive spending review. I am afraid that is exactly what he will have to do.
While on the subject of structures, the House will be aware that we established a very wide-ranging tourism forum last autumn. It has more than 50 members, all with distinction in the industry, working towards a tourism strategy. It will not be only a government strategy but a strategy of the representatives of the industry. It will be published later this year.
Again on structure, concern has been expressed about devolution and the establishment of regional development agencies. We see these as being a real plus already. The British Tourist Authority is working with the Scottish and Welsh Tourist boards, and the prospect of the regional development agencies is leading to better co-ordination of efforts in tourism at a local level rather than nationally.
There was comment from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about sustainable tourism. Our consultation document published in April this year has already been debated in this House. As we said then, we recognise that sometimes tourism can mean that certain parts of the country, to use a phrase, are "loved to death". That is undoubtedly the case. Unless we study these issues, we shall not contribute either to our international obligations on sustainable development or to the development of a greater diversity in tourism, which is what sustainable tourism, to a very large extent, is all about.
We have responsibilities for tourism regeneration. Some of these are private, some public and some are a mixture. The Granada Studio Tours are an entirely private venture; the redevelopment of the Albert Dock and the King's Dock in Liverpool are public and private, as is the Wigan Heritage Centre. The National Lottery and the single regeneration budget are contributing heavily in the north-west region, including a National Lottery grant of £60 million for the Lowry Centre in Salford and the single regeneration budget expenditure of £90 million in Blackpool towards the improvement of the infrastructure, to which my noble friend Lord Montague referred.
There were a number of references to museums. I recognise the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. We hope that we have halted the tide, but

1039
there is a certain amount of a King Canute problem here. Financial pressure will inevitably continue the difficulties which Merseyside and other parts of the country have. They will be difficult to overcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to the Imperial War Museum project in Trafford. We hope very much that this exciting project will succeed. There has been and will be additional fundings for the Manchester museums, for the Xanadu project in Wigan and many other projects in the north-west region.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke about the need for a big idea—although he did not use that phrase—for a tourist attraction of international significance in the North West. I do not agree with that. Diversity of tourist attractions makes for a more balanced tourist industry. It makes different kinds of people come to different parts of the region. That is what we want in terms of sustainable tourism. Seven-and-a-half million people a year visit Blackpool pleasure beach. That is a tourist attraction of international dimensions.
I acknowledge what a number of noble Lords said about the need for continued attention to the transport infrastructure. Of course, that is what the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is working on now, as it is also working on the preparation for its local government White Paper on contacts between local planning authorities and the tourism industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, seemed worried about that. I remind him that local authorities are very active subscribing members of the regional tourist boards, so much so that the North West Tourist Board is serviced by Bolton Borough Council. Considerable amounts of money—£75 million in the North West—are spent by local authorities on tourist attractions. Their role is extremely valuable. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the continuing need for co-ordination between them and the tourist boards, but his fears do not worry me too much. Nobody referred in particular to the division between the Cumbria and North West Tourist Boards, but I can tell the House that they have a joint strategy and are establishing single points of contact which are of great value.
The most important matter for my noble friend Lord Morris and others is Manchester Airport. I am grateful for my noble friend's recognition, first, of the Treasury's conversion to the ability of the airport to borrow money on the strength of its balance sheet, with the effect that the borrowings need not be included in the PSBR. Similarly, I am grateful for his recognition that we have removed many, if not all, of the restrictions on bilateral air services being opened up in Manchester, with the result that from Manchester there are now flights to more than 50 international destinations. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is looking at the possibility of loosening the restrictions which Manchester Airport, as a local authority airport, has in undertaking partnerships and joint ventures. We hope that its conclusions will be apparent in the forthcoming White Paper on local government.
Noble Lords referred to the European Regional Development Fund and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred in particular to the need for support in rural
1040
areas. He will know that under objective 5(b) east Cumbria and north Lancashire are included for help under the Regional Development Fund.
There was reference to the Commonwealth Games in 2002. Noble Lords will know that the relevant departments—the DCMS, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the DTI and the DETR—together with Manchester City Council and the English Sports Council are actively planning the funding which will be necessary. However, noble Lords are quite right to say that at that time other events will be taking place. There will be cultural events and of course, although this was not referred to, the Queen's Jubilee will take place in that year.
I have not had time to talk at all about other government policies which are helpful in promoting tourism, although the House may allow me a few extra moments in order that we avoid adjourning during Pleasure. I pay tribute to those major companies in the tourist industry which have supported our New Deal initiative—Whitbread, Stakis, Thistle, Queens Moat House, Granada, Allied Leisure, Swallow and hotels in every part of the north-west region. They are all taking part in the New Deal.
I believe also that our policy as regards the minimum wage, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, thinks, and the social chapter are helpful to the development of quality tourism. We do not want a tourist industry in which people are paid starvation wages and are forced to work for unreasonable hours. A sensible working week and minimum wage are already applied by those best companies in the tourist industry. The adoption of the social chapter will enable us to ensure that those high standards are achieved by all parts of the tourist industry.
I am not in any way apologetic for the Government's intervention, their role and the help that they can give to inbound tourism in the north-west region. I believe that we are already doing a great deal and that our progressive and forward-looking plans will enable us to do more in the future.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
8.35 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("in particular").
The noble Lord said: This is a more substantial group of amendments and in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 18.
I shall speak first about Amendment No. 12 which is the smallest and least significant amendment in this group. In a way, it is separate from the others although they all refer to the way in which determinations are to be made under Clause 3(9) by the Secretary of State in deciding whether an organisation is in fact a terrorist organisation under subsection (8).
Amendment No. 12 seeks to remove the words "in particular". This is a legal point. I understand that in discussion on the Human Rights Bill, it emerged that the words "in particular" are superfluous. To tell a Minister discharging a statutory function to have particular regard to something is either superfluous or misleading. It is superfluous in the sense that the Minister would not be performing his duty if he failed to have regard to the factors which are relevant; and it is potentially misleading if it is suggested that such factors should exclude other relevant factors.
I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to understand all the niceties of that particular argument as it was discussed on the Human Rights Bill, but I thought it worth raising the matter for discussion on this occasion.
The other amendment standing in my name and those standing in the name of the Liberal Democrats return to the question of decommissioning, which we have already discussed in part on an earlier amendment. It is my view that the difference between the two sides of the Committee, and in particular between the two Front Benches, is not as significant as some commentators seem to make out on this matter. In the first place, we wish to stay within the letter and spirit of the agreement and I shall explain in a few moments why we believe that our amendment is within the agreement.
But it follows from that that we do not want to create a precondition. The Minister and some of his colleagues have returned time and again to the question of establishing a precondition and he spoke earlier this evening of bartering prisoners for guns. I am not quite sure how he works out that our wording means the establishment of a precondition by comparison with the wording in the Bill. Perhaps we mean something different by the word "precondition". We are not necessarily thinking about exactly the same thing. Therefore, to make it clear, I take it to mean what I believe lawyers call a "condition precedent"—that is to say, something which must be in place before something else happens.
If we had tabled amendments which called, for example, for some or all arms to be given up before any prisoners, or all of them, were released, that would be a precondition—a condition precedent. However, our amendment asks only that the Secretary of State should believe that an organisation is co-operating with the decommissioning commission as opposed to merely taking into account whether or not it is co-operating with the commission. We want the two processes to be parallel. The hurdle that we seek to set up is easy to clear today, as it were, for an organisation that might be affected by this provision when the whole matter of decommissioning is at a very early stage.
Apparently some terrorist organisations have appointed representatives and are talking to the decommissioning commission, while others have not done so. Therefore, in taking into account or deciding whether or not she believes that they are co-operating with the commission, the Secretary of State will obviously have regard to the organisations which are talking and those which are not. If the Secretary of State gives any weight to that at all, she is ensuring, to some degree at any rate, that the two processes are parallel.
Of course, we are putting a slightly stiffer test on the matter. However, I also promised to say whether I thought it was in line with the agreement. I believe that it is, for the reasons which I explained earlier to the Committee. The very first page of the agreement says:
"We pledge that we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement".
So there is a general commitment—a general linkage—between all the different parts of the agreement, including both the decommissioning and the aspects relating to the prisoners. There is also the specific practical link between both decommissioning and prisoners, in that both of them affect the terrorists and the terrorist organisations very directly by comparison, for example, with the setting up of the north/south ministerial council, or some other aspects of the agreement, where those presently languishing—if that is the right word—in the Maze are not so immediately and practically affected. But of course they have every right to expect that all the other parts of the agreement will also be carried out. Indeed, I have no doubt that they will expect that.
We were asked earlier to rely on the character of the Secretary of State—and, indeed, the character of the Prime Minister—as being a guarantee that all would be properly pursued. Frankly, I do not believe that that is really sufficient—not, I hasten to add, for any personal reasons connected with the Secretary of State herself or the Prime Minister, but because, as has already been discussed, the Secretary of State is an institution and not a single person. Indeed, the situation could change even temporarily during which time another Secretary of State might take charge of such matters during the temporary incapacity of the Secretary of State or because of some other difficulty.
In any case, the whole matter has to do with pressures. If there is a gap here and thereby an opportunity for prisoners to be released without decommissioning going along in parallel, it seems to me that people will try to force that gap open. The pressures on the Secretary of State will then be much greater and it will be much more difficult for the Secretary of State—whoever it is at the time—to resist. Those pressures can be of all sorts of different kinds, both democratic and undemocratic. Therefore, I believe it is right to stiffen up the wording of the Bill a little. That is what Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 seek to do.
I put Amendment No. 18 into a slightly different category. Its purpose is to insert the word "and" between paragraphs (9)(c) and (9)(d), which relate to the four conditions. The word "and" is very important. If the Secretary of State is to take into account those four conditions, will she look at each one separately and decide in each case, "Yes, I think we can put a tick against each one"? Alternatively, will the Secretary of State look at all four of them together and say, "Well, on matters (a), (b) and (c) the organisation in question is doing quite well, but on (d), decommissioning, it is not doing very well: never mind, we shall just look at (a), (b) and (c)"? Without the word "and" it seems to me that it is open to the Secretary of State to say just that. Indeed, if it is open, people will press very hard

1043
for it. They will say, "Look, we are fulfilling (a), (b) and (c). We are doing our best on (d) and admittedly we haven't got anywhere. Nevertheless, we are doing our best and you don't need us to fulfil that one as well". The pressure will certainly be on.
Again, one has to address the question whether or not this is within the letter and the spirit of the agreement. I believe that it is, for the reasons that I have already given but also for another more specific reason. We are constantly referred back to the Prime Minister's speech at Balmoral on 14th May. In that speech, he set out the four conditions, although not precisely as they are set out in the Bill. Nevertheless, they are set out in a similar way. Indeed, the legal drafting gives every indication of having been based on the Balmoral speech. In fact, we have been told from time to time that it does pretty directly reflect the Balmoral speech. However, there is one difference: the Balmoral speech does include the word "and". The four conditions that are set out are set out as if they were separate with the word "and" included, but not as a general statement, which is what appears in the Bill. That is very significant in defending Amendment No. 18 against the charge that it is outside the letter or the spirit of the agreement.
While talking about the Balmoral speech, it is relevant for me to quote what the Prime Minister said immediately after setting out these factors. He said that the factors must be,
"given legislative expression directly and plainly in the legislation to come before Parliament";
in other words, this Bill. Later, he said that,
"it is surely reasonable that there should be confidence-building measures from these organisations"—
referring to the terrorist organisations—
"after all the suffering they have inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland … we also have a responsibility to provide protection against abuse of the democratic process, and its benefits"—
and there is no bigger benefit to those concerned than this prisoners' Bill—
"by those not genuinely committed to it".
I agree with that. Indeed, for that reason, I think that this amendment which seeks to include the word "and" is of great importance. However, I do not want to take away from the importance of Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 about which I spoke earlier. As I said, they attempt to insert the proposition that the Secretary of State should believe that decommissioning, among other things, is being carried out by the organisations.
In Amendment No. 14, which is also in this group, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, is suggesting, appropriately enough from the Liberal Democrat Benches, what I believe one could call a halfway house, in that his amendment would still mean that the Secretary of State would take into account the various factors. But instead of just thinking about them, he or she has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion on the various factors one way or another. That does not go as far as I would like to go, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for stepping at least a few yards in our direction. I hope that I can persuade the Minister and his colleagues to go at least that far, but if possible further, because that is extremely important.
I said earlier—I believe this strongly—that if there is no decommissioning the agreement will fail sooner or later. Other things can trip it up, of course, but if there is no decommissioning I believe that confidence in the agreement will fade away to below vanishing point. The only chance of obtaining decommissioning is to make sure that the prisoners realise it has to proceed in parallel because the prisoners will argue for it within the terrorist organisations and then it stands a chance of happening. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, was kind enough to indicate that I had moved in his direction. I think the attitude being taken by the Conservative Benches in this Chamber is a great deal more careful and—if I dare say so—responsible than that taken some weeks ago in another place. We can see where the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and his colleagues are coming from. However, I am afraid that that is as far as my politeness goes. I find myself in unfortunate company because I do not agree with any of the amendments in this group, apart from my own. The groupings list states that,
"every effort is made to secure agreement to these groupings".
However, I am afraid those prodigious efforts did not include talking to me about the matter. I find myself not in agreement with Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15 and 18. I shall say why in a moment.
I shall first discuss my amendment, Amendment No. 14. I want to make it absolutely clear to the Committee that the point of this amendment is not in any way to make the conditions either easier or more difficult to fulfil. The point of it is quite different. If my amendment were accepted, page 2, line 34, would state,
"In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether on the evidence available to him he has concluded that an organisation"
and then the four desiderata are set out.
The point of that amendment is that subsection (9) as it is presently worded seems to imply that considerations (a), (b), (c) and (d) are objective facts which are easily understood and easily agreed by everyone. That cannot possibly be the case. Each of them is a matter of difficult and sensitive judgment, even more so—I support this in the Bill—when it is a matter of trying to judge them in combination to see whether, in combination, the Secretary of State should take the view that he or she has to take. The first aim is to transfer a spurious objectivity that these are objective facts in the real world to the realm in which they properly belong, which is as matters of judgment that someone has to make. Who is that someone? Clearly it is the Secretary of State who has to make the judgment. That brings me to the second purpose of my amendment; namely, that he or she should do so on the basis of the evidence available to him.
I think earlier in the debate someone talked in this context about the crucial role of the security services. It is quite apparent that on each of these considerations the advice of the chief constable in particular, but also of other security authorities, will be crucial for the Secretary of State to make these judgments. I prefer a

1045
transparent process in which there is no mumbo jumbo and no mystery, and where it is quite clear that it is the Secretary of State who has to make a judgment and has to reach a conclusion, and that he or she should do so on the basis of the evidence available. That is the whole object—a rather humble one, you may say—of my amendment. I seek to take this matter out of a curious kind of limbo in which these become revealed truths, and put it where it belongs as a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State using the evidence available.
I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Cope, feels that that is a good thing in itself—I welcome that—but it is not meant to be a halfway house to the other amendments, which I fear fail the test I set from these Benches at the beginning of the debate, which is that they should not seek to build on the Good Friday Agreement additional linkages, conditions and tests. I do not think that that is appropriate.
I oppose Amendment No. 18. I think that the insertion of the word "and" turns (a), (b), (c) and (d) into separate conditions, each of which has to be separately met in order for the Secretary of State to arrive at conclusions. That clearly is not the purpose of the Good Friday Agreement which is that when the considerations are taken as a whole and taken together that judgment should be arrived at. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support that amendment in particular. I do not in practice support the others in the group.
I urge the Government to think hard about Amendment No. 14 in my name, and particularly about the discrepancy between subsection (8) and subsection (9). In subsection (8) we find the Secretary of State having to specify organisations which "he believes" fulfil certain conditions. However, in subsection (9) the situation has reverted to the limbo I mentioned. In subsection (9) the Secretary of State has to take into account whether an organisation "is" fulfilling certain conditions. Who works that out? Whose conclusion is it, and on what evidence is it reached? It is that I should like clarified.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I very much regret that I was not able to be present at Second Reading because of an engagement in Northern Ireland. I have, of course, read with great care the Official Report. I was not in the least surprised to find in virtually every speech expressions of great distaste for this Bill, and in some cases for the necessity for this Bill. In one or two instances there were expressions of rather more than distaste. The reason for that is too obvious to need stating again tonight.
The prospect of terrorist prisoners being relieved of the greater part, in some instances, of what courts have held to be their just deserts is something which revolts my heart, as it has revolted the hearts of many others in this Chamber. I have seen too many of the victims and I have seen too many of the scenes at which they became victims. There was a time last week when Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 carried my name in support. In case anyone has noticed that that is no longer the case, I thought I should offer a few words of explanation. I am afraid it is something which will not
1046
surprise my noble friend Lord Molyneaux, for example, or others. It is simply that I have changed my mind. The background is the following.
In almost every speech at Second Reading it was stated that the agreement is a most historic and momentous achievement. I think it a most hopeful achievement. There was a recognition that the agreement has to be sustained, even though, of course, it contains aspects which are distasteful. The importance of Her Majesty's Government not amending it unilaterally was recognised. Like it or not, in some respects I too believe that the agreement has to be given every reasonable chance to work. The agreement is immensely hopeful as an achievement. I wish that it had been tougher on the question that we have been discussing, and more specific in relation to what is required of the Secretary of State when assessing whether an organisation has or has not established, is or is not maintaining, a ceasefire. However, I have to face the fact that it is not.
My distaste for the Bill led me at first to want to support Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I thought that I properly should do so. However, I admit that I have changed my mind. I recognise that there are two ways of looking at the matter; it is not black and white. I do not want any terrorist organisation or future supporter of any terrorist organisation to be given any unnecessary advantage. They have too many as it is. It is important that the Bill is not amended in any way that can plausibly be argued to take it beyond the text, or the spirit deriving from the text, of the agreement.
I was much influenced by the fact that Mr. David Trimble said on 17th June that the Government's concessions have given,
"legal effect to the decommissioning section of the Agreement and the pledge given by the Prime Minister at Balmoral".
I fear that Amendments Nos. 13 and 15, quite unintentionally, would, or might foreseeably, give such an advantage to a future terrorist organisation or a future supporter thereof. I appreciate that there are two ways of looking at the matter. However, it can be said that it imports by being much more specific, and not as general as is the linkage—to which my noble friend Lord Cope is perfectly entitled to point—an indication that can be prayed in aid, plausibly and perhaps unjustifiably, that the British Government had unilaterally moved beyond the spirit at least of the agreement.
I confess to having adopted successively each of the two ways of looking at the problem. However, for the reason that I have tried to explain, I do not feel able to support Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I support Amendment No. 18, for the reasons advanced in support of it by my noble friend Lord Cope. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that I have no problem at all with Amendment No. 14.
9 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his explanation. He speaks as one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, and a recent Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have listened with great respect to all the views that he has expressed so clearly.

1047
However, it is rather a pity that, from the very first day that we read the Bill, and even before it appeared in another place right through the harsher debates in another place, and unfortunately last week at Second Reading in this House and all day today, there has been an implication that somehow or other those of us who dare to table amendments and speak to them are against the agreement and are wreckers of the agreement, that we are determined to pull down the whole edifice.
I, being an old hand at all of these matters, take a rather wider view. A party conference provides a broad brush steer for the party concerned. A party manifesto, particularly an election manifesto, is slightly more definitive. But that, too, is only policy-making in outline. It does not become legislation until it passes through both Houses here and receives Royal Assent. There is a misunderstanding about our desire to improve the Bill. That is why we are here, both in this House and in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, got it right when he said that we seek to put in place the devices and various arrangements outlined—but no more than outlined—in the Good Friday Agreement. Not everyone may be aware of the fact that matters were only broadly agreed in the Good Friday arrangement.
I do not know whether many noble Lords saw the interview given by the chairman of the talks, Senator Mitchell, who did a very good job generally throughout all the tortuous discussions. The BBC in Northern Ireland broadcast a lengthy interview given by Senator Mitchell for television transmission. The interviewer said to him: "Senator, was it touch and go to the very end on Good Friday?". Mr. Mitchell looked very relaxed, smiled broadly and said, "Oh yes, it was. The final draft of the document was circulated in the late afternoon on Good Friday. I had a telephone call from David Trimble, who asked for more time to enable his team to consider recent alterations that afternoon". He said, again with a broad grin,
"Your request will be met, Mr Trimble. I have summoned the final plenary for 5 o'clock because I have to catch my flight in the morning. It is now 4.45. You have your extra time—15 minutes exactly".
I am not complaining about that. I was not on the negotiating team. I do not wish ill on any of those participants or Senator Mitchell. However, that gives an insight as to how broad the brush was. When one talked to members of the negotiating team from various parties, no two of them could give exactly a clear idea of what they had agreed in relation to some of the more substantial matters in the agreement.
That is why I say with great regret that I viewed the Bill when it appeared as I would any other Bill coming before this House or, in earlier days, the other House; namely, as a draft Bill designed to be debated, amended, improved, and all the rest. I cannot understand why there appears to be a degree of resentment in some quarters and a curious misunderstanding that those of us who seek to improve the Bill, as we would any other legislation, are stepping outside the bounds into forbidden territory and attempting to go against or to damage the agreement. The agreement was, after all, not signed by anyone. It seemed to have been assented to
1048
by some people who spoke, but there were other voices in that gathering that were silent. Noble Lords can put their own interpretation on that.
I have got that off my chest and shall now come to the amendment. As it stands, subsection (9) is utterly unconvincing. It would be a bit of an insult to the Secretary of State to retain the form of words in the subsection:
"the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account".
The word "particular" has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. The Secretary of State is required only to "take into account"; not to make a judgment on certain facts, not to make a decision, but simply to,
"take into account whether an organisation",
is complying with four of the most fundamental conditions set out in the Good Friday Agreement, the sacred document. I believe that the words "take into account" debase the Bill and with it the agreement itself. It is true to say that the general public in Northern Ireland are becoming more cynical by the day. In those circumstances, a phrase like "take into account" certainly will not do.
Amendment No. 13, in particular, is designed not to damage the agreement but to strengthen the authority of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in dealing with this most vital issue of all. If we do not do that, I am afraid that the entire release scheme will descend into farce, and confidence thus lost will never be regained.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I support the amendments in this grouping, including the one proposed by the Liberal Democrat Benches. It was nice to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holme, admit that there was more sense on red Benches than on green Benches on this side of the Chamber.
I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in trying to persuade those on the Benches opposite that we are not trying to wreck the agreement or to move in a unilateral fashion. We are trying to improve this legislation and thereby perhaps protect the Government. We hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the suggestions we have put forward. We believe that all of them add benefit to the wording of the Bill. It will be interesting to see whether the noble Lord can accept any of them. After all, he began the Committee stage by stating that he would accept, and be comfortable with, some of the suggestions. We are still waiting for that.
Lord Desai: I am sorry to intervene in this debate; I do not know whether my noble friend will find it helpful. I have the impression that we have still not quite come to terms with the nature of the agreement. I tried, rather hesitantly, to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—who, unfortunately, is not in his place—that this is not entirely a UK matter and that neither are the UK Government overall sovereign but a partner in negotiation with other parties. The fact that these parties are groups of citizens of the UK is neither here nor there. It is a complicated process. We are in a messy situation, half decolonising, half regulating.

1049
I know that this may inflame passions rather than calm them, but I think of the agreement as more like a multilateral treaty which various parties have arrived at. What we are doing is embodying the treaty in a piece of UK legislation, and disturbing it may mean that other parties who agreed to it may feel that they will be better off doing something else.
At least one party, the Republic of Ireland, was a sovereign party. The Republic agreed to an historic decision in its referendum. An historic concession was made by the Republic to remove Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution. That was quite amazing. In the first post-Imperial partition which has been legitimised, as it were, post-haste, the Republic has agreed that it does not have a claim on Northern Ireland. That is very much part of this matter. If we start messing about—with the best intentions of course—the agreement will unravel. That is the way I view the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in relation to Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. It is a delicate situation.
I am not sure that I would include the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. To me, the words "shall take into account" do not need embellishing further. There is no great empirical factor involved; it means that certain things shall be taken into account as the Secretary of State feels it appropriate to do so. I am worried that if we start to unravel this, it will fall apart. It is important that we carry the Bill through as it stands because it was carefully drafted.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before my noble friend replies, I should like to say a few words. I become a little troubled when people say, in relation to a Bill that we are considering, that we should not do anything about it; that we should not amend it in case it upsets an agreement which the Government have already made without consultation with the British people outside Northern Ireland.
The fact is that around 56 million people in Wales, Scotland and England have an interest in this matter. They always have had an interest in it. After all, the IRA terrorists have not confined their activities to Northern Ireland; they bombed many places on the mainland. We have just as much interest in decommissioning therefore as anybody in Northern Ireland.
It is right and proper that this place, as part of the United Kingdom Parliament, should be able to speak on behalf of the English, the Welsh and the Scots who have not been consulted. We have not had a referendum about it here. So this is the only place where we can make our voice heard. Those in this Chamber who represent the mainland—Parliament represents Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the UK—are entitled to introduce amendments and, as with any other Bill, to advise the Government of their opinion. That is what Parliament is all about. If that is not what we are about, why on earth are we discussing the damned Bill? Why are we wasting our time? If we are being told that anything we do will upset the agreement, why are we discussing the Bill? Why do we not go home to our wives and families, go
1050
to bed, have a good night's sleep and come back tomorrow to do business which will perhaps have some effect?
Generally speaking, therefore, I believe, as I hope I made clear, that we are entitled to discuss this Bill. Indeed, if there is a vote, I shall be inclined to support the amendments before us. They stiffen up certain matters; they say to the terrorist organisations—not individual terrorists in this case—that they have to co-operate in decommissioning. As I said earlier today, unless we have decommissioning by both sides, the assembly cannot work. It will be under perpetual threat from one side or the other. I believe that the amendment will be a little help towards that and is deserving of our support.
Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may first apologise for not being present for the beginning of the amendment; I was trying to rearrange my flights in accordance with the time.
It is my inclination to support the amendment. The Minister may wonder why so many of us are supporting so many small amendments involving words like "in particular". He should realise that the reason there are so many is that the agreement in itself was vague in intention in order that it could be made. The Bills that have come forward, which will probably become Acts, are to make the provisions within the agreement more precise. If we go on allowing very vague words to go through in every clause, it will be a wonder if the Bill is not fought over and disagreed with for months to come. Therefore, although the amendment in itself is not necessarily vital—neither are many of the others in themselves—overall, we are dealing with a very weak and rather limp Bill which could cause more trouble than we realise at the moment.
Lord Dubs: I have listened with great interest to the comments on these various amendments. This is an important part of the legislation and has provoked a great deal of interest both in this House and beyond. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Stoddart that of course this House has the right to consider all aspects of the Bill and, indeed, to put forward suggestions or amendments to alter it. But it is equally the Government's right and the right of other noble Lords to say that, having got an agreement which represents the best opportunity for peace for Northern Ireland for many, many years, if we believe that certain suggested amendments are counter to the agreement and might jeopardise it, that is part of the process of debate and discussion. No one is saying to the noble Lord that he does not have the right to make whatever contribution to the debate he wishes. But the Government for their part want the agreement to stick and want to give effect to it because they believe that that is the best way forward.
Perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 18. I understand the thinking behind them. In essence the argument is that, as it is legitimate for the Secretary of State to take into account the four factors in Clause 3(9) when determining whether a terrorist organisation has established and is maintaining a

1051
complete and unequivocal ceasefire, it is no less legitimate for her decision to be governed by these factors. I understand and recognise the logic behind that argument. On the face of it, it is only a small step from saying that these are factors which should be taken into account to saying that the Secretary of State's decision should be governed by them. I have to tell the Committee that there is a clear difference between the two, however, and the amendments take us into territory which we would not be able to support.
That is because the practical effect of the amendments would be to turn the four factors into specific tests or preconditions which would have to be met. Whatever the merits of that, it would take us beyond what was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement and beyond what the Prime Minister said in his Balmoral speech on 14th May. The Prime Minister's purpose in identifying these four factors which are reflected in Clause 3 was to provide a mechanism for clarifying whether those who stood to benefit from accelerated releases were associated with organisations that were genuinely committed to democratic non-violent means. These are crucial factors which will need to be weighed in the balance, but they are not intended to be prescriptive. The Secretary of State must be free to make a judgment in the round, taking account of all the relevant factors, including those listed in Clause 3(9).
I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and I welcome his decision not to support Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I just wish he could be nudged a little further into not supporting Amendment No. 18, because I believe that the use of the word "and" also changes significantly the sense and changes it in a way which also takes us further than the agreement. It represents a quite significant change to link all those four factors in the way that is done.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he therefore think that the Prime Minister went beyond the agreement in the Balmoral speech when he used the word "and"?
Lord Dubs: The Prime Minister was not speaking in legislative terms.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Dubs: The Prime Minister was speaking in general terms. Those noble Lords opposite who say "no" have been Ministers. They know exactly what I am talking about. They may feel that they have changed sides and can talk differently now but they will know better than I do, because they have had more experience in government than I have had, that there is a difference between a colloquial form of expression and converting the intent of that into a legislative form. That is the purpose when we have the Bill and that may be the reason why, grammatically, there are some differences
1052
between what the Prime Minister said and what is in the Bill. It is only in that sense that there is a distinction between the two.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful to the noble Lord for permitting me to intervene briefly. I am even more grateful to him for closing the gap between us because he and I now think alike. He is standing by the principle of putting into legislation something which was said in outline. I was saying exactly the same thing. There was a rather vague document which had been approved verbally but not with signatures. The Bill has the same status now. In my eyes it is putting into effect in detail what the delegates thought they were agreeing to on Good Friday. I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Dubs: I believe that the noble Lord is taking the argument further than is reasonable. He knows that he is trying it on. It was a good effort.
I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, a question. I am no lawyer. He used the term "condition precedent". Can he tell the Committee what is the difference between that and what I would call a "precondition"?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: None, as far as I am aware.
Lord Dubs: That is fine. I am grateful to the noble Lord. At least we are talking about preconditions, which is one of the underlying difficulties. We were unhappy that there should be attempted changes to the Bill which would alter the agreement by inserting preconditions, as opposed to all the elements of the agreement being taken together.
I turn to Amendment No. 12 which concerns the use of the words "in particular". These words are important because they show that the factors in subsection (9) are not exhaustive. They are matters which the Secretary of State must take into account. She can take into account other relevant factors as well. The words do not preclude her from considering other matters. If they were removed it would suggest that the list was exhaustive, and that is not the intention.
I now turn to Amendment No. 14 which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. The amendment is helpful as it quite rightly identifies that the Secretary of State must make her decision under Clause 3(8) on the basis of the information available to her, which is the case. As was indicated in another place, that information would include information provided by the Chief Constable and the GOC. I can assure the noble Lord that it will be on that basis that any judgment is made under this subsection.
I hope that what I have said goes some way to meeting the noble Lord's wishes. I am sensitive and sympathetic towards the general thrust of his argument. I believe that the way in which the Secretary of State will give effect to that meets the point without requiring

1053
the change in terminology suggested by the noble Lord. For those reasons I am unable to support these amendments.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may ask a question which is tangential to this discussion if not exactly connected. We shall shortly be leaving the accelerated release Clause 3 and I hope that that is sufficient excuse. Will the noble Lord accept that in the context created by the Good Friday Agreement, and also by this resulting Bill, that there is now a strong and widely held perception that in fairness the cases of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher ought to be revisited now, if not by an accelerated sitting of the Life Sentence Review Board then by some other but immediate procedure?
Lord Dubs: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing this case in the light of correspondence from the guardsmen's solicitors. She has received papers today and will be considering them as soon as may be during the next few weeks. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that papers on such cases are extensive but that they must be given full and detailed consideration. The Secretary of State will consider the court papers, the previous advice from the Life Sentence Review Board, her own previous decisions and the various judicial review judgments. She will also take account of the many representations she has received regarding the case, many of which come from noble Lords who are present today. As the noble and learned Lord will know, the Secretary of State cannot prejudge any decision she may make as a consequence of this further review, but when a decision has been made, she will make it known.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We have had an interesting further debate on the linkage between decommissioning and the release of these prisoners. At the moment, we are not making much ground, but I am still in the business of trying to persuade the Committee and the Government that that linkage should be stiffened. I am reinforced in that view by some of the speeches that have been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred to the fact that the agreement went much wider than just the Government and included, among others, the Government of the Republic of Ireland. However, we have not yet seen the equivalent Republic of Ireland legislation on the same matter which is expected under the same agreement. The Government of the Republic of Ireland are also in the process of putting into legislative effect in their jurisdiction the same processes as we are putting into effect in our jurisdiction on the basis of the same words in the same agreement. The same factors arise in both. We have been promised sight of the Republic of Ireland legislation before Report stage. That is extremely important because it will allow us to have another view of how the agreement might be put into legislative form. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said about the way in which the
1054
agreement was arrived at, it may be that their interpretation is sightly different from ours. We should certainly have the opportunity to see it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that we should certainly be able to speak about and debate these matters. I said at Second Reading that we are heading for an Act of Parliament, not an act of government. It is therefore Parliament's duty and the duty of each of us as Members of this House of Parliament to satisfy ourselves and to discuss all the provisions of the proposed Act of Parliament before it passes into law.
The Minister said that, on the face of it, there is little difference between us, so I have not yet entirely given up the aim of persuading the Government to move in our direction a little with regard to these amendments. Nevertheless, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 40, after ("directing") insert (", assisting").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 bring us to one of the subsections which implement one of the conditions laid down in the Bill and in the Balmoral speech. In that speech, the Prime Minister said that one of the matters to be taken into account was that no other organisation should deliberately be being used as a proxy for violence. That is translated into legislative form by Clause 3(9)(c)—but not quite fully enough, in my view. The agreement is not much help in deciding on the precise wording, but paragraph (c) states that the organisation in question should not be,
"directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations".
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 seek to add the words "assisting" and "or planned", so that paragraph (c), as amended by these amendments, would read that the organisation should not be "directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other organisations".
With regard to "assisting", given that regroupings of terrorist organisations are now taking place, it may be that parts of one organisation help another organisation to form itself into an effective terrorist force. If that is so, it should be provided for in this condition. It is a familiar phenomenon in Northern Irish affairs that from time to time terrorist organisations split and re-form. It comes as no surprise that that is taking place at this stage. Assistance given by one group to another can be of the greatest importance in allowing the latter to get off the ground.
The second amendment seeks to add the words "or planned". We believe that the present wording restricts the Secretary of State to looking at acts of violence that have already been committed. But a good deal of the directing or promoting may relate to acts of violence that have not yet been committed. That is of equal significance in deciding whether or not an organisation falls foul of these provisions. Putting it in practical terms, if someone is intercepted on the way to planting

1055
a bomb, that is not an act of violence that has been committed; it is an act of violence that has been planned and would have taken place but has been prevented by the alertness of the police or by other means. If that particular act has been promoted by an organisation thought otherwise to be "clean" I believe that that fact should not be ignored by the Secretary of State in reaching a judgment under subsection (8)(b). I believe that these two extra words are necessary in subsection (9)(c). I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I am not convinced that Amendment No. 16 makes much difference to the way this part of the Bill is constructed. I believe that the matters referred to are already clearly addressed in Clause 3(9)(b). Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment takes the matter much further.
However, I have greater interest in Amendment No. 17. I believe that there is merit in the point at issue here. I agree that, as currently drafted, Clause 3(9)(c) is too restrictive, in that it is limited in range to acts of violence that are committed by other organisations. We shall explore how to give effect to the spirit of the amendment. If we can devise a form of words, we shall table a government amendment at Report stage.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Suddenly, we appear to be getting somewhere. Given that assurance, I am delighted to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Fixed term prisoners]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("he") to end of line 27 and insert ("would otherwise have been discharged").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. The amendment raises a rather technical point. I am seeking guidance about the meaning of the particular provision rather than pressing the Government on the matter. The amendment proposes to delete the words at the end of Clause 4(4). Those words refer to what happens when a prisoner is released on licence and they help to determine the date on which his sentence is regarded as expiring and therefore the date on which the licence lapses.
During the course of today we have heard a good deal about how prisoners can be pulled back in—it sounds a very easy process but in practice it may be very hard to do—if they fall below the standard expected while on licence. Therefore, the date on which the licence comes to an end is important.
The words in the Bill as it stands suggest that the licence should come to an end when the prisoner could have been discharged on the grounds of good conduct under the prison rules; that is to say, every prisoner is assumed to have good conduct, but that will not be the case with all prisoners. Before the Bill is passed and
1056
before any of its provisions affect them, some prisoners may already have lost remission or had had conduct leading to the discharge date being changed. In that case, bad conduct should not be rewarded. I suggest therefore that the licence should lapse when the prisoner would otherwise have been discharged, taking into account bad conduct, and good conduct if he has behaved well. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he put this matter. The precedent that one remembers is the 1995 Bill, brought forward under the previous government when a similar limitation was not introduced. Clause 4(4) we think has it right, because a prisoner still serves his sentence until the licence elapses. His sentence will continue until such a time as he could have been discharged on the ground of good conduct under prison rules.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right, that even with his amendment, as it were, there would not be the result that some people might wish. For instance, the amendment would not let a sentence run on a fixed term. I give an example. If a prisoner were serving a 10-year sentence, the amendment would not ensure that the sentence ran to the last day of the 10 years, because it has no effect on the operation of Rule 30 of the prison rules, which derive their validity from Section 13(7) of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.
Again, the noble Lord is right: those prison rules automatically give a prisoner remission for good behaviour unless he misbehaves. If one leaves out the reference to "good conduct" it is arguable that bad behaviour is therefore to be ignored. Therefore we think we have this right. It just indicates clearly that his licence is determined—that is, his sentence comes to an end—at the time when he could have been discharged on the ground of good conduct under prison rules. If he is of bad conduct, under prison rules the remission will not inure to his benefit.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It would seem that the effect that I wish to achieve is being achieved by the Bill without the necessity of my amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Fixed term prisoners: special cases]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Life prisoners]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 21.
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("elapse") and insert ("completion").
The noble Lord said: I am not a great admirer of the drafting of this Bill. This is the first of three little amendments I have put down in the hope of improving it. I will not detain the Committee long with it. It refers to the use of the word "elapse" in Clause 6 (1). This word is not included as a substantive in Collins dictionary nor in the Concise Oxford dictionary. In the 20-volume Oxford Dictionary it does appear but it is

1057
stated as being archaic. There was a use of it in 1793 and again in 1800 but it has not occurred in literature since 1883.
I therefore propose that it is inappropriate in the Bill and that it would be preferable to change it to the word "completion". I know that my noble friend is resisting amendments put down by your Lordships, but I very much hope that he can have no objection to mine. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In this group are Amendments Nos. 21 and 23, both in the name of my noble friend Lord Kilbracken. Since my noble friend Lord Dubs is not replying on this occasion, the Committee will not be surprised to know that a much more flexible approach will be found from me. (I was testing whether anyone was still awake!)
There may be some value in accepting Amendment No.23. I should like to give particular consideration to Amendments Nos. 21 and 23. Before accepting the amendments we would wish to consider further and consult with draftsmen. But if it is decided that the amendments are necessary or helpful, I can undertake to bring forward an amendment or amendments at the next stage.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is highly desirable that this House should not appear antique and out of date in the legislation that it passes. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has done us a service in drawing our attention to it. I am grateful for the Minister's positive reaction.
Lord Kilbracken: I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. In the light of the undertaking that has been given to me by the Minister on this vital matter, I am happy to withdraw the amendment; and also I hope to avoid the necessity of speaking to Amendment No. 23.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Life prisoners: specified dates]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("1999") and insert ("10th April 1998").
The noble Lord said: I find the subsection to which this provision refers rather odd. Clause 7(1) requires that,
"The Secretary of State must inform the Commissioners of the length of time served by persons sentenced in Northern Ireland to imprisonment for life, and released on licence after 1982 and before 1999".
I assume that the Secretary of State and her officials would be entirely willing to give such information, or any other information that the commissioners might require, to enable them to fulfil their duty without needing legislative provision to do so. I put down the amendment because the information to be given relates to the length of time served by life-sentence prisoners up to the end of 1998. I am not sure why only the length of sentence is to be given. Many more particulars are
1058
required to decide how comparable are other sentences served in the past to the sentences appropriate for those serving life sentences at present. It is not an average which is required; it is as precise an application as possible of what the individual prisoner would have served if the Bill had not existed.
On page 25 the agreement states that one of the matters which is relevant is the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted. In considering the seriousness of the offences for which the prisoner was convicted and comparable sentences one needs to know more than the average length of time that was served.
There is a second oddity. Why does it go to the end of 1998? I am not sure how quickly the commissioners will be in business and releasing prisoners, but it is entirely possible that some prisoners may be released—even life sentence prisoners—before the end of 1998. In that case the amount of time served by people who have been released on licence will be affected by those released early by the commissioners. That is arithmetically wrong.
In deciding what a sentence would otherwise have amounted to, the commissioners should look only at sentences which have been served by prisoners after 1982 and before the Good Friday Agreement was signed on 10th April 1998. An alternative might be to make a provision which commences after 1982 and before this Act comes into force, or something of that sort. I do not want the calculation of the lifers' terms to be affected by those released early under this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I should perhaps begin by saying that the Life Sentence Review Board will continue to carry out its advisory role in relation to life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland as part of the normal life sentence review procedures.
The decisions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State are relevant to the commissioners in their consideration of how long a qualifying life sentence prisoner should serve. Under Clause 6 the commissioners are required to specify a day for release which marks about two-thirds of the period the prisoner would have been likely to spend in prison under the sentence.
Prisoners are usually given provisional release dates by the Secretary of State which are about 12 months after the date of the consideration of their case by the Life Sentence Review Board. After they are given their provisional release date they will spend time on a pre-release scheme which counts as part of their period in custody. By requiring that information on all releases before 1999 should be provided by the Secretary of State and taken account of by the commissioners, the Bill ensures that all provisional release decisions made up to and including 10th April may be taken account of.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Licences: conditions]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 15, after ("Ireland,") insert—
("(c) that he is not involved in directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people,").
The noble Lord said: We have reached Clause 9 which deals with the licence conditions. It is interesting that the licence conditions do not include a provision about directing, promoting or assisting in violence by others. At least something reflecting the same thoughts as in Clause 3(9)(c) should apply to the licence conditions. We debated that clause a moment ago and the Minister agreed to consider the suggested improvements. Somebody who is released may not be directly supporting the terrorist organisation to which he belongs but he may be directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people. In that case, his licence should be revoked. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment. The direction of others does not arise only on this Bill. It arises in other emergency legislation. I remember well when that emergency legislation was passed through this House, the issue of the role of godfathers—those who direct the activities of others—took up a considerable part of our deliberations, and quite rightly so.
It may be that the Minister will reassure us that Clause (9)(1)(b) is intended to cover this issue of the direction of activities of others, but I should like to hear that in making up my mind about the amendment.
Viscount Brookeborough: I too support the amendment. One fears that we may reach a situation in which, while there are fewer groups which continue with terrorism, there are still a great number of weapons in the public domain. There will be people, if there are not already, who will commit crimes which are close to terrorism but not terrorism. Some of those people may have lived off their ill-gotten gains for many years and they will then argue that what they did was not terrorism as such. Therefore, I support this amendment to include other acts which may be closely connected.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Holme, the assurance which he seeks. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the matters covered by it are already fully and adequately contained in the terms of the licence set out in Clause 9(1)(b), which make a prisoner subject to the licence condition,
"that he does not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
1060
That quite adequately covers the activity referred to by Members of the Committee. I contend that the amendment is not required.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Is the Minister saying that an individual becoming concerned in the commission, preparation and so on is the same as helping somebody else to do it? Perhaps it is. If it is, my amendment may be unnecessary but I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation of that.
Lord Desai: I believe that in Clause 9, the word "instigation" covers what the noble Lord wants covered. That is what instigating is all about.
Lord Dubs: I thank my noble friend Lord Desai. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is yes.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Accelerated release]:
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 15, after ("is") insert ("whichever is the later of—(a)")
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple and straightforward amendment, as I hope have been all the other amendments which I have put forward this evening. It is designed to ensure that there is reasonable equity between one group of prisoners and another in connection with the sentences which they are intended to serve.
There is a possibility that a distinction will be made between prisoners who have been convicted before and after the coming into effect of this Bill. This amendment merely seeks to ensure that those who are convicted after the coming into effect of the Bill are treated no better than those who were convicted of similar offences and sentenced before the Bill came into effect. That is the intended purpose of the amendments and I hope that they will lead to that effect. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Dubs: When I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List, I was not entirely sure what it was intended to achieve. I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the reasons behind his amendment. It is important that this part of the Bill be coherent. For that reason, the Government have brought forward their own amendments, which will be considered soon.
Under the agreement, those prisoners who remain in custody two years after the commencement of this legislation may be released. Clause 10 allows account to be taken of those prisoners arrested and charged after the commencement of the legislation, those prisoners arrested and charged before the commencement of the legislation but sentenced after, as well as those sentenced before the commencement of the legislation so that in each case no prisoner is released before he has

1061
served two years; and no prisoner is released before a date two years after the commencement of the Bill. I believe that that is the best way and a way that is fully in accordance with the agreement. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that his amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Tebbit: I am still not totally certain that my amendments are unnecessary. It is possible that a prisoner who has been convicted not that long before the coming into effect of the Bill will serve, let us say, two years and six months. It is also possible that, immediately afterwards, a convicted prisoner may serve two years having been sentenced to the same length of imprisonment. That would seem to me to be entirely unfair as between the two prisoners. I wish to ensure that, merely because of an arbitrary circumstance of the date on which the conviction takes place, prisoners will not be treated differently when the court has sentenced them to a similar sentence.
Lord Dubs: Without any prejudice at all, perhaps I may consider the noble Lord's point. I believe that I am right in what I say but, just to be doubly sure, I should like to check on the position. If I am wrong, perhaps I may get back to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Tebbit: I thank the Minister for what he says. I am entirely happy to accept his assurance that he will look again at the matter. Perhaps we may return to it on Report. Although I am sure that we are at one in our intention, we must ensure that the Bill carries out that intention, which I believe we both share.
Lord Dubs: I should point out to the noble Lord that, of course, what I have said is subject to the reservation that the agreement does have a two year cut-off period. I want to examine what the noble Lord said to make sure that what the agreement is intended to achieve is not being achieved through the argument that the noble Lord used. If it does achieve a two year cut-off, I am afraid that there may be some differences between prisoners sentenced before and after a certain date. However, that depends on whether or not they fall within the terms of the agreement.
Lord Tebbit: I entirely understand what the Minister says. I realise that he is back on his mantra of the agreement. However, I am back on my mantra of justice. I appreciate that there will be times when the agreement and justice are incompatible. Under those circumstances, if we cannot make them compatible, it is possible that I shall seek to divide the House on the matter. However, I need not do so tonight. I am sure that we shall try to find a way through the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 19, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 and the consequential amendments to Clause 18—that is, Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42—are intended to correct an oversight with a government amendment to the Bill made in another place. Clause 10(8) of the Bill was added to the legislation in another place to take account of prisoners who may have been convicted of a qualifying offence prior to the commencement of the Bill but who had spent time unlawfully at large. As the Bill had originally been drafted, such prisoners might have been eligible for release before they had served two years in custody. That was not the intention and so the subsection in question was added.
However, in adding the subsection, the Government overlooked that Clause 10(4) to (6) were variable by order of the Secretary of State. The variation of these subsections was a direct consequence of the terms of the agreement which allows for flexibility in relation to the two-year cut-off depending on the circumstances and progress towards a peaceful society.
Although this amendment affects only a small number of cases, it ensures that all cases are treated on a similar basis and that no prisoner is released before the date of the cut-off, set under Clause 10(4) as two years from the commencement of the Bill, and no prisoner, no matter when he is committed to custody, serves a shorter period in custody than the period between the commencement of the legislation and the cut-off, that is, under Clause 10(5), (6) and (8), two years. I commend the Government's Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 40, 41 and 42 to the Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not sure that I am entirely happy about the Secretary of State being able to change the minimum of two years. I am not quite sure in which circumstances he would wish to reduce the minimum of two years. It might be helpful if the Minister were to spell that out to us. However, I have another, more technical difficulty with these amendments. As I understand it, Clause 10(7) will permit the Secretary of State to amend Clause 10(8). Similarly, Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 refer to Clause 10(9). As far as I can see, there will not be a Clause 10(9). Perhaps those amendments are defective in their drafting.
Lord Dubs: I am assured that the figures are correct and that everything is proper and in order. Without spelling it out in detail—I am sure the noble Lord would not want me to do that—I have received confirmation that everything is as it is supposed to be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 24, at end insert—
("(9) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsections (4) to (8).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Interpretation: prisoners and sentences]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("each").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 32 I refer also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 which are grouped with it. This is an attempt to increase the fairness with regard to multiple sentences. As I read the Bill—I may be wrong about this—if a prisoner has two consecutive sentences of five years or more for qualifying offences, they are to be treated as one. Therefore the prisoner with two sentences of exactly five years would serve one-third of 10 years; that is to say, three years and four months. That is assuming he is not overtaken by the accelerated release provisions under Clause 10.
Unless an amendment on the lines of my own is accepted, a prisoner with one sentence of five years and another of, say, four years, would serve one-third of five years but a half, under previous legislation, of the four years; that is to say, three years and eight months. That is four months longer than for the first prisoner, who had the longer sentence. That would seem unfair on the man with the shorter sentence. I should be grateful for the Minister's comment.
Lord Dubs: The paper that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State placed in the Library on 20th April made clear that only sentences of five years or more would be considered under the Bill. The effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would be to allow consecutive sentences of less than five years to be discounted if imposed in respect of a qualifying offence and at the same time as the imposition of a qualifying offence of five years or more. That would go beyond what the Government have said they will do. However, if the noble Lord wishes me to do so, I will undertake to consider the matter further before Report.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I think the matter should be considered before Report. I realise that both the agreement and the paper have taken on a quality of holy writ in relation to this matter, even though, as previously discussed, clearly there were detailed matters which are extremely unlikely to have entered into the minds of those who were considering them before Good Friday. However, in view of the noble Lord's undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Inadmissibility]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 41, at end insert ("or a co-accused").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36.
Both of these amendments seek to explore what is intended by subsection (4) of Clause 13, which provides that subsection (2) of the clause,
"shall not prevent the admission of evidence adduced on behalf of the accused".
Two issues arise. The first is the need to clarify that an accused man would be able to lead in evidence in his defence at a criminal trial evidence and information provided to the commissioners by another party and covered by the provisions of Clause 13(1).
The second issue requiring clarification is that, if the person who provided the information was one accused, would subsection (4) permit a co-accused to lead that information as evidence in his defence even though the prosecutor could not lead it as evidence upon which the prosecution would wish to found against the first accused, who was the person who had provided the information to the commissioner?
I can well see that the two issues that I raise fall within the policy that is intended in subsection (4) of Clause 13. Notwithstanding the character that the agreement and the document are acquiring as the hours go by, it does not seem to me that either document deals with this issue. I should therefore welcome clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble and learned Lord is quite right in his understanding as to the meaning of Clause 13(4). I am happy to give that clarification.
As has been observed earlier, there are prohibitions in Clause 13(2) against the admission in distinct, discrete proceedings of anything that might have been said for the purposes of these arrangements in Clause 13(1). However, the saver is in Clause 13(4); statements made to the commissioners which may not be admissible in the proceedings that I have described may well be admissible as evidence if adduced on behalf of the accused. The noble and learned Lord is right in his surmise. That would include a person who is a co-accused. I am happy to reaffirm in relation to subsection (4) of Clause 13 that, when one speaks of the admission of evidence, that may be the defendant's or applicant's own evidence; the evidence of a co-accused; or indeed—the noble and learned Lord is right—a party who is not even the subject of the proceedings. I hope that that has reaffirmed the noble and learned Lord in his tentative view that Clause 13(4) is wide enough to cover what we both recognise as being necessary.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. On the basis that my amendment is unnecessary, I seek leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 14 [Information for victims]:
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 37.
Page 7, line 47, at end insert ("or has been released under section 4 or 6").
The noble Lord said: In Clause 14 we move on to the question of providing information for victims. The clause begins by stating:
"The Secretary of State shall provide a statement … if … he believes—
"that the person about whom the statement is sought is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Northern Ireland for a fixed term of at least five years".
However, subsection (3) provides that such a statement shall state,
"if his application has been granted, whether he has been released and the date on which he has a right to be released".
Clearly, if a prisoner has been released, he is no longer serving a sentence of imprisonment,
"for a fixed term of at least five years or for life",
as required by subsection (1)(a). It therefore seems clear that the words,
"or has been released under section 4 or 6",
should be added at the end of Clause 14(1)(a). I beg to move.
Lord HoIme of Cheltenham: I rise briefly to support the amendment. Given the importance of Clause 14 and the fact that the Committee has agreed that victims should be notified unless it creates,
"a danger to the safety of any person",
the amendment aligns the preamble with the detail in subsection (3). I believe that this is a sensible amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely sympathise with the point made by both noble Lords. The point is already covered. As the noble Lord rightly observed, under subsection (3)(c) of Clause 14, the Secretary of State has a duty to provide a statement giving information about prisoners who have been released. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, stated that, if someone has been released on licence, that person is no longer serving a sentence. A person who has been released and is on licence is still serving a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of Clause 14(1)(a). I am happy to give that reassurance, which I recognise that it was entirely proper to seek.
Lord Kilbracken: I must point out to my noble friend that paragraph (c) does not say anything about being released on licence; it merely says,
"whether he has been released".
1066
The words "on licence" have been added by my noble friend.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. A prisoner can only be released on licence. If a prisoner is released on licence under this scheme, he is still serving a sentence of imprisonment.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to my noble friend. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 38.
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("in Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 38, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 39. The purpose of this pair of amendments is simple. Clause 14 already obliges the Secretary of State, subject to one or two safeguards, to give information about early release to victims, or to the families of victims, where the sentence was passed in Northern Ireland. No doubt as a result of an oversight—and I understand that Clause 14 was inserted into the Bill at a fairly late stage—no such provision is made for the victims of terrorist atrocities committed in England, Scotland or Wales or for their families—for example, the families of the two men murdered at Canary Wharf. That is quite illogical and, more importantly, wrong. These amendments attempt to rectify the omission, which, as I said, I am sure was due to an oversight. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I wish to support my noble friend Lord Monson in what he said both in regard to the past tense and in the future though, strictly speaking, that does not apply to the terminology of this Bill. However, offences have been committed in Great Britain and unfortunately others may be at the planning stage. We are therefore all in the front line together.
Viscount Brookeborough: Further to what my noble friend Lord Monson said, offences have also been committed in Northern Ireland where the perpetrators have been caught just across the border in the Republic. They have then been convicted of those offences. It is important therefore that prisoners who are released from the Republic under any early release scheme which may affect victims in the north should come under this provision.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I sympathise entirely with the purpose behind the amendment. My advice is that it is not necessary because it is already dealt with in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3. That paragraph extends to offences committed in Great Britain the duty of the Secretary of State to provide information to victims which is set out under Clause 14. Therefore I recognise that all the concerns raised are legitimate, but my advice is that the matter is already covered in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to both my noble friends who supported me and to the Minister for his

1067
explanation. I shall study what he said and will not return to the matter if I am satisfied that no further action is required. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Orders and rules]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("10(7)") and insert ("10(9)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 9, line 8, leave out ("10(7)") and insert ("10(9)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 9, line 18, leave out ("10(7)") and insert ("10(9)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—

INTERPRETATION
(" . In this Act, except so far as the context otherwise requires—
"terrorism" means the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear, and
"terrorist" means a person who is or has been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of an act of terrorism or in directing, organising or training persons for the purposes of terrorism.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 18 is quite straightforward and seeks to introduce into the Bill definitions of the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist".
As the Minister stressed on more than one occasion this evening, the Bill is concerned with terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. In two other Acts of Parliament of which mention has been made this evening similar definitions are to be found. In the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, Section 20, "terrorism" is defined in exactly the terms used in the first part of Amendment No. 43. In the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 both "terrorism" and "terrorist" are defined in the terms used in both parts of the amendment.
It seems to me to be sensible that this Parliament should make clear to those who may have to apply the provisions of the Bill when it becomes law that, in using these terms, they mean what was meant by Parliament in the 1989 and 1996 Acts. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward the amendment. I consider that it would be helpful to include within the Bill a definition of "terrorism", which is a term used on a number of occasions. However, the term "terrorist" does
1068
not appear in the Bill in the form referred to in the definition and so no amendment is required in that regard. For this reason I intend to bring forward a government amendment at Report stage.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: On the basis of that helpful response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Commencement]:
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 9, line 32, at end insert ("but no such day may be appointed (other than in respect of this section) until after the release on licence of every member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown serving a sentence of imprisonment in respect of a conviction for murder committed in the course of their duties in Northern Ireland").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, although it is carefully drafted, and I hope sufficiently carefully drafted, to avoid the hazard of turning the Bill into a hybrid Bill, is about Guardsmen Fisher and Wright and the injustice which would be perpetrated were they to be left in prison when terrorists are let out.
There is no doubt at all in my mind about this issue. I accept, of course, that it is well within the bounds of possibility that the conviction of these men was unsafe and that through the efforts of, most notably, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway there may be what one would call a judicial route towards their release and therefore an end to this injustice. But we cannot assume that the conviction was unsafe and we cannot assume that any judicial process will result in their release. However, what is clear is that, whatever the circumstances of their conviction, it would be profoundly unjust were they to be left in prison when serial killers, who in the judgment of many of us, even if not in the judgment of the commissioners, may well be a danger to the public, were to be released.
These young men are extremely unlikely to be a danger to the public. They were not members of a terrorist organisation, whatever may be the view of members of Sinn Fein about the role of the Army in Northern Ireland. They were seeking to do their duty. They may have made a tragic mistake—that is possible—but what is certain is that they did not set out that day to commit murder.
The circumstances of this case are clear enough. The view up until now, perhaps even up until today—perhaps that view is changing today in view of what I understand was said while I was out of the Chamber—which was expressed in the other place on 11th February by Mr. Adam Ingram, the Minister of State, is perfectly clear. It is that the review board had duly considered the case at its meeting on 14th and 15th October 1997 at the five-year stage of the sentence. The confidential recommendation of the board was then referred to the Secretary of State for her personal consideration. Mr. Ingram went on to assure the House that the cases had been the subject of very detailed and thorough consideration by all those involved at the various stages of the review process. No extraneous considerations, political or otherwise, had been permitted to influence

1069
the decisions taken. I can give that absolute assurance. That was in the context of the reply which had been given on 3rd November 1997 to my noble friend Lord Westbury by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who stated that,
"The review board's advice to the Secretary of State in these particular cases is strictly confidential and will not be disclosed. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has decided that the cases of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher should be referred back to the review board in one year's time, i.e. October 1998, when they will have served six years in custody. No date for release has therefore yet been fixed".—[Official Report, 3/11/97; col. WA276.]
On various occasions, Ministers have made it perfectly plain that they believed that it would not be proper if these young men served less than six years for the crime of which they had been convicted.
The Government have made it plain that no political or extraneous circumstances will be taken into account in determining their sentences. Therefore, unless the judicial route uncovers circumstances which make it clear that the conviction was unsafe, there can be no possibility of their release in less than six years, for to release these young men earlier in the lack of such considerations would be to bring into play political or extraneous circumstances. The Government have said that they are not willing to do that.
More recently, in exchanges in the other place with the Prime Minister when my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter, the Prime Minister himself made plain that the ground was shifting a little underneath his feet. In fact, he suggested that the reason that there had not been another review of their case was that there had been further judicial proceedings. At that stage, he said that now those proceedings were out of the way their case could be reconsidered and that he would ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to so reconsider.
But on what basis? On the basis of a consideration whether the conviction was safe or unsafe or on some political consideration? Indeed, it was not correct to say that consideration of their cases had been delayed by the application for judicial review which their own lawyers had made. It was quite obvious that if the Secretary of State had considered that five years was a sufficient sentence for these young men they could have been released last October. They were not. She took the view that they should serve at least six years, although she also takes the view that serial killers could be released in two years. This whole matter typifies the injustices which will be perpetrated by this Bill.
My amendment would get the Government off the hook on which they have impaled themselves because if the Committee sees fit to enact it then quite clearly it would—shall I say?—cause some difficulty for the Government, which I understand, in taking the matter back to the other place and asking Scottish Members of Parliament who are Government supporters to vote to keep Fisher and Wright in gaol. It would therefore give the Government the perfect and plausible reason, without any consideration of whether or not the conviction was unsafe and without moving from their position that political considerations should not be taken into account, to say, "We were overwhelmed by the
1070
consideration of Parliament and in order that this agreement shall come into effect"—we know of the importance that the Government attach to the belief that this Bill is part of the agreement and that it must be fully brought into effect—"we have to release these two young men". It would be a case of force majeure.
I do not worry in what way they are released. I do not worry if they are released next week on bail, awaiting some other process, judicial or legal, which would release them more permanently on licence in the manner that terrorists have been released. I do not like that. I do not think that they should be released on licence because I do not think that there is any fear that they will reoffend. I think that they should be released clearly, absolutely and without condition. But my purpose is to get them out of prison because nothing less would serve the cause of justice. I hope that this amendment may offer the Government a way out of their difficulties which have perhaps been compounded by the Prime Minister's words more recently in the other place.
I cannot express myself any more clearly than that. I can only hope that the Government will be able to respond. I do not think that any of us believe that these young men should be retained in gaol. I just hope that the Government will indicate tonight that they share that view and that they are looking for a way out of this problem. I offer them one way out. If they have a better way out, I would be very happy indeed to accept it. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My noble friend Lord Tebbit and I share the same aspiration, but we differ fundamentally as to the means by which it should be achieved. It is with the utmost regret that I have to oppose the amendment. My noble friend Lord Tebbit is an old friend for whom I have the greatest respect. He is a man of total integrity whose motives are never to be called in question. However, this amendment proposes to delay release under the Bill (for which eligibility is provided by Clause 3) until all members of our Armed Forces serving a mandatory life sentence for murder of a civilian in the course of duty in Northern Ireland have been released outside and otherwise than the Bill as it stands. Under what mechanism for release? That is not stated in the amendment.
On Second Reading and today, my noble friend Lord Tebbit named Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. No other member of the Armed Forces yet falls within the ambit of the amendment. Release (as proposed by this amendment) is without paragraphs 1 to 3 of page 25 of the Stormont agreement, which is not subject to renegotiation. There is no concept of priority of eligibility for release either under the agreement or the paper used in negotiations to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred this afternoon in the context of Clause 3. I refer to paragraphs 5 and 7 of that paper.
In this and in other contexts the agreement was the linkage of irreconcilable differences placed in juxtaposition to achieve a common purpose and endorsed by the vast majority of the electorate in

1071
Northern Ireland, albeit in somewhat unusual circumstances, as my noble friend Lord Tebbit said. The linkage reflected by Clause 3 refers, on the one hand, to the armed soldier on duty on the streets of Northern Ireland who kills a civilian without legal justification—murder—and who must then serve a mandatory life sentence, subject to release by the Secretary of State. The Committee will be aware that in Northern Ireland exceptionally the lesser charge of manslaughter is not available. I know not for what reason. On the other hand, there are those who have killed and maimed on many occasions for diverse sectarian and politically motivated purposes and have either been sentenced to life imprisonment or a term of at least five years based on the gravity of their offences.
There is no doubt that that is unacceptable to the Committee. It is unacceptable to me. But that is not the point. There is an obvious discriminatory disparity in this agreement against our armed soldiers. But that is not to the point. If the Government tamper with Clause 3, which this amendment inevitably involves, their moral authority to foster the peace process will be dissipated. To what constructive end should the Committee protest, object or support this amendment? Is not the only wise, realistic course to support the common purpose of the agreement in the hope of peace in the Province?
As to the guardsmen, it is not in their interests that they should be taken hostage and used as pawns to claim priority as to eligibility for release as proposed by the amendment. On 23rd June your Lordships concluded that their conviction had been a grave miscarriage of justice and that they should be released at once by the Secretary of State on licence, subject to recall under the delegated remit of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy pending judicial resolution of the rectitude of their conviction. Therefore, those guardsmen are in a wholly distinct category from all others to whom Clause 3 applies, many of whom, as I have said, have killed or maimed for diverse politically motivated purposes, none of whom claims any challenge to the rectitude of their convictions.
In the wake of 23rd June, General Sir David Scott-Barrett and General Naylor, on behalf of the release group, made arrangements for those men to be visited so that all appropriate steps may be taken, with their formal authority, to set aside their convictions. In that context I must again thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his good offices. He sent all my papers to the commission so as to achieve priority—a truly noble gesture across the Floor of this Chamber.
As regards release, as they remain in custody, a Motion has been tabled to resolve that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, who retains overall dispensation of the prerogative, to seek immediate release, having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the miscarriage of justice and the want of any other mechanism to afford immediate release. With respect to my noble friend, it is wholly inappropriate that those guardsmen should in any way
1072
be associated with this amendment or with any kind of political activity which seeks to exert any pressure on the Government.
On the basis of reasoned persuasion, it is the hope that Members of this place may support this Motion for an humble Address, soon, I am informed by the Government Chief Whip, to be debated, although a date has not been fixed. If carried it can but advance the prospect for immediate release.
I was not present in the Chamber, but my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has told me about the present position, and indeed I am grateful. But a decision in three to four weeks—a decision taken on these flawed findings of fact that supported conviction, the miscarriage of justice, the zenith of culpability, which have thwarted release up to now by my noble and learned friend, and by all Secretaries of State, and will continue no doubt to thwart release. I am grateful for what I am given, but it affords me no comfort.
Beyond that there is again the expectation of relief in some four months' time, again on those flawed findings of fact which bedevil the prospect of release. Under this Bill, there is the mechanism for release—the commissioners and this and that, and one thing and another—but does one really imagine that these men could ever be released under about nine or 12 months?
What I seek, by respectful request, is a resolution of Members of this place to seek to present an humble Address to Her Majesty to exercise the prerogative for immediate release, and in no circumstances should that be in any way affected or tainted by politics or by association with this amendment. Such is not the intention of my noble friend, whose intentions and motives are never to be criticised, but that I fear is the result, and it is a result which I oppose on behalf of the guardsmen.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, went to a great deal of trouble and exercised a great deal of patience to get this amendment on the Marshalled List. As I am sure noble Lords appreciate, and as the noble Lord said in introducing the amendment, he is not seeking to employ a political manoeuvre to have released these two honourable young men. I made a modest contribution to the debate a few weeks ago in this House when their plight was debated. I did not hear one voice raised against them. I understood that all present were wholeheartedly in favour of the principles which have just been put forward, and were expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, earlier.
Since the amendment refers to the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, I wish to pay tribute to them—I do not think that it is out of order—for their devotion to duty and the courage and patience they have shown over these many decades. I do not exclude my old regiment which has been there almost from the beginning. I know that I speak for all the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland of whatever faith in paying

1073
that tribute to the Queen's forces in Northern Ireland for all that they have done and are doing—and, God help them, may still be required to do.
Lord Renwick of Clifton: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has raised the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright in the debate. I wish to assure the noble Lord that many of us on this side of the Chamber feel just as strongly as he does that there has been, and is, a miscarriage of justice in this case.
The question is how it is to be dealt with. There are now two ways in which to proceed. One is by the process of judicial review. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I should greatly prefer these cases to be dealt with by that process rather than by the process envisaged in the Bill which relates to terrorist offences. We feel as strongly as does the noble Lord that the security forces in Northern Ireland are called upon to perform an almost impossible task.
I should like to suggest to the noble Lord and to the Committee that there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with this case. I believe that the right way to proceed is for the Minister, as I hope he will, to take back to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the strongly held view of Members on all sides of this Committee that this case should be dealt with, and expeditiously, and that these guardsmen should be released.
I believe that the wrong way to deal with it is by an amendment to the Bill. The Bill gives effect to the agreement. I honestly believe that I am speaking at least in part on behalf of Baroness Ewart-Biggs, who used to sit on these Benches. She herself a victim of terrorism and longed to see the day when an agreement of this kind was possible to give new hope to the people of Northern Ireland. She would not want to see the Bill amended and sent back to another place in a form which could make it more difficult to achieve that essential goal.
On that basis, I hope that the Committee will join in expressing the view that the guardsmen should be released, that this should be a case for judicial review, but that they will not support the Bill being amended tonight.
Viscount Brookeborough: I will support the amendment if necessary. I have not spoken on this matter before. The noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, suggested a judicial review. I speak as a lay person but, if that is to happen, why can they not be released pending that judicial review?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise only to correct the noble Viscount. It is not judicial review. The way that it is done is that authority is given so that application is made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission—and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already sent my papers there to achieve priority. The commission then sends the application to the Court of Appeal and the court of appeal either quashes the conviction, orders a retrial or refuses the application. That is the position.
Viscount Brookeborough: I thank the noble Lord for putting me right.
1074
I will say a few words about it as a lay person. If there has not been political influence in keeping the two guardsmen where they are, then there has definitely been political inactivity in doing anything about it. We know from the size of the majority that the Government have that it is possible for them to do anything if they put their minds to it.
The Government shy away from many of our amendments to the Bill which are designed to tighten up the legislation on terrorists and their release. The Government know that there is much unease felt by everybody about the release of prisoners—except by those connected with the terrorist parties. They seem to be overjoyed. Yet the one thing we cannot do is accelerate the release of two soldiers. They are there not because they choose to be; they are there because of the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland, let alone the remainder of the United Kingdom, feel that this case should be dealt with promptly.
If this amendment is the wrong way of doing it, I know that everyone would plead for some fast action rather than, as they see it, more delaying tactics until the Government feel that things are safer in Northern Ireland. I am not accusing them of doing that but that is the way it is perceived outside. It may not be fair but perceptions are all-important in Northern Ireland. People on both sides of the political divide in Northern Ireland see no threat to the political process, to the peace process or to the present situation at all in doing something for these two guardsmen now.
Earl Attlee: I have one question for the Minister. Before asking it, I will remind him that I do have an interest to declare. As a serving officer in the TA, I have three or four regular soldiers under my command.
Will the Minister tell the House if he believes it reasonable for Guardsmen Fisher and Wright to continue to be held in custody whilst convicted terrorists are released?
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that this must be dealt with promptly. I was very heartened by the announcement that the Minister made in response to the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, earlier in the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit was not with us, as he acknowledged.
I was heartened because it indicated that the Government have now taken on board the urgency with which this case is viewed on all sides of the House. It is notable that in his statement he said that the Secretary of State would be taking into account the opinions of your Lordships, which have again been expressed very forcibly this evening.
However, I do not know whether I am alone in feeling unease about the equivalence implicit in the amendment we are now discussing between disciplined soldiers of the Armed Forces upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland and terrorists, whom we all condemn. I find some unease in that equivalence. I understand the

1075
motives behind this amendment in the sense that it is a last resort, but I should rather find a better resort than that envisaged in the amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My noble friend Lord Tebbit has once again raised a most important point which, as all Members of the Committee will know, has attracted great attention in your Lordships' House, in the Armed Forces in particular and well outside either of those august bodies all over the United Kingdom.
I noted what the Minister said earlier in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and at this stage I want to say only that this is not a matter which will go away. It is a matter to which we shall return again and again. Once again this evening, as before, Members on all sides of the Committee have wanted to see the release of those men.
There is no doubt that this Bill changes the situation quite radically from what it was last autumn when the last decision was taken. I believe also that the most satisfactory way for the men to be released would be through a judicial process which cleared them of the murder charge, as opposed to just letting them out of prison, which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is pursuing. As he said, we shall shortly have an opportunity to discuss that route.
But it is not the only route by which the end we all seek can be achieved. On previous occasions the Minister has suggested that this Bill may be a route through which it is achieved. The statement which the Minister made earlier seemed to suggest another, although I did not sense quite as much urgency in the way he expressed the matter as this Chamber feels on that matter.
I cannot judge which is likely to prove the quicker of the various routes on offer, but it is clear what the Committee wishes to be achieved. Meanwhile, I hope the Government will pay careful attention to what was said by my noble friend Lord Tebbit.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps the most helpful procedure to follow is for me to explain what is the situation as regards the guardsmen and then deal later with the amendments. I understand the reasons for the amendment, and I am aware of the strength of feeling in this Chamber, reflected today and on the several previous occasions when we have debated the matter.
Although some noble Lords may have been present when I made my earlier comment, it is only fair to those who were not present to repeat what I said in answer to a question by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, two or three hours ago. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing this case in the light of correspondence from the guardsmen's solicitors. She received the papers today and will be considering those papers as soon as may be during the next few weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be aware that the papers in such cases are extensive, but they must be given full and detailed consideration. The Secretary of State will consider the
1076
court papers, the previous advice from the Life Sentence Review Board, her own previous decisions and the various judicial review judgments. She will take account also of the many representations that she has received regarding the case, many of which are from noble Lords who are here today.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will know, the Secretary of State cannot prejudge any decision she may make as a consequence of that further review, but when a decision has been made she will make it known. That was what I said in reply to a question raised on an earlier amendment. That is one avenue forward for the two guardsmen.
An alternative avenue, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred, concerned the Criminal Cases Review Commission. That has nothing whatever to do with the Secretary of State and is concerned with the safety of the previous conviction and the question of a possible miscarriage of justice. During an earlier debate a few weeks ago, I offered to send various papers that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, had allowed me to see, together with others, to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The noble Lord agreed that I should do so; and, indeed, I have.
The third possibility is simply that, if the Bill becomes law in its present form, clearly the guardsmen, having committed scheduled offences—not because they are terrorists, but because they have committed offences which are defined as "scheduled offences"—would also be eligible to have their cases for release considered by the commissioners once they had been appointed under the legislation. I do not know which of those methods is the more likely. The guardsmen would certainly have to apply to the commissioners after the latter's appointment, but the Secretary of State is already considering the matter in the terms which I have described.
All I have said indicates that the Government are very sensitive to the views which have been expressed tonight. Clearly the Secretary of State's wish to look at the papers again, and her decision to start to do so today, is an indication of her desire, as it were, to reflect the views which have been expressed in this Chamber on a number of occasions. However, I cannot go any further in that respect.
I turn now to the amendment. I understand the reasons behind it but I cannot accept it. The Good Friday Agreement contains no such requirement and to impose such a requirement at this time would be not just to depart from its terms but, frankly, to drive a coach and horses—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the Minister continues, perhaps I may point out that there are two further avenues available. There are the general release powers of the Secretary of State after consultation with the trial judge and the Court of Appeal. That is the fourth avenue and the fifth, as the noble Lord conceded on 23rd June, is the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in truly exceptional circumstances where no other mechanism is

1077
available to afford immediate release. Therefore, there are five avenues. It is the fifth that I fight for; indeed, I have always done so.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord is right to say that there are in fact five different avenues which are open to the two guardsmen.
I was saying that the Good Friday Agreement contains no such requirement as that set out in the noble Lord's amendment. I contend that, if this Chamber were to pass the amendment, it would in fact drive a coach and horses through the agreement. I understand the noble Lord's motives, but I am disappointed that he has decided to make the release of individual prisoners an issue in this way. Indeed, it can only be a political issue because of the way that he has put forward the argument.
As I said earlier, there are well-established procedures under which life sentence cases are considered. Those arrangements have been applied in the case of these prisoners. Account has also been taken of the circumstances in which their offences were committed. While many noble and gallant Lords have made representations regarding the consideration of these cases, the argument has not been that different rules should apply. However, the procedures certainly mean that individual circumstances can be taken into consideration. That is what the Secretary of State is doing in looking again at the cases.
It would not be appropriate to pass the amendment. Indeed, I suggest that it would not be in the interests of the guardsmen to do so. I believe that it would take the whole issue which this Chamber has discussed on numerous occasions into the realm of political controversy, which would hardly be helpful to them. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tebbit: I just wonder what those two guardsmen would have felt had they heard the Minister say that it would not be in their interests for this amendment to be carried because it would take them into the realm of politics. I believe that the Minister is living in a different world. Those guardsmen want to get out of prison and be reunited with their loved ones. If that comes as a result of politics, I fancy that their view would be, "Well, that's the way it is", not that they would be upset if the Committee should enact this amendment, and that in consequence the doors of their prison would be opened and they would be released. Surely they would not hide at the back of their cells saying, "No, we cannot accept this freedom, it is so embarrassing for us". Of course they would not, and that is an extraordinarily weak argument.
I do not care how these men are released. I do not believe they care how they are released. In moving this amendment, and in all that I have said about them, I am not looking for honorary membership of the Caledonian Club or anything of that kind. I am looking simply for justice for these men. Had I and others not raised this matter, particularly on the Second Reading of this Bill, would the noble Lord have made the statement which he did today about these young men, or would it have
1078
been left just to drift on with them in prison? I have to ask whether the Government are beginning to shift a little from the position which they had taken up. If they are beginning to shift a little, are they beginning to shift under pressure, and would they have shifted had that pressure not been applied?
The Minister observed that this amendment was outside the terms of the agreement. So we are back again to this wonderful agreement from which not only may nothing be taken away but to which nothing may be added. I should remind the Committee that the representatives of Fisher and Wright were not invited to the talks from which this agreement sprang. There were no representatives at the talks of the Army or of their regiment, no one to speak for the soldiers. There were only people to speak for the terrorists and the democratic parties. We have to speak for them now. There is nothing in the agreement which says that these men should not be released. This amendment does not in any way affect the terms of the agreement. It would not delay the passage of the Bill. It would not delay its coming into effect, not by a single day, because it is within the power of the Secretary of State to release these young men. Of course if we were to enact this amendment tonight, or on Report, there would be great pressure on the Government to find a way out of the problem.
Let me again read to the Committee a paragraph from the letter of 2nd December from the Minister of State, Mr. Ingram, to my honourable friend Mr. Michael Trend, the Member of Parliament for Windsor. The concluding paragraph states:
"It is important to bear in mind that the cases of the Guardsmen were considered by the Life Sentence Review Board significantly earlier than usual in life sentence cases in Northern Ireland. Normally cases are considered for the first time when prisoners have served 10 years. This is within the context that the average period served against a life sentence in Northern Ireland is approximately 15 years' imprisonment. The Guardsmen were considered for the first time when they had served only 5 years in custody.
I hope that you find this information helpful".
There is nothing wrong with hoping, is there?
That was the position of the Government last December. I understand that now the position is changing. I do not know why. Is it changing because they have been impressed by the material passed to them in the past few days by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway; or is it that they are impressed by the fact that people are beginning more and more to see that a fundamental injustice is being perpetrated by the Bill as presently drafted? I do not know which it is, but I have a fair suspicion.
I say to my noble friend Lord Campbell and others that politics is a pretty dodgy and unpredictable trade. All of us who have been in it for many years know that. But it is nowhere near as unpredictable and dodgy as the law. That is the implication of what has been said

1079
this evening. It has been said by my noble friend that he believes that these men are in gaol not because of politics but because the law went wrong.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Well, it did.
Lord Tebbit: My noble friend says that it did. I am not able to judge that matter. I was not in the court. I did not hear the evidence. I do not know what happened. But what I do know is that almost all of us are convinced that, even if these men were guilty of the crime of which they were accused and convicted, in the light of the release of serial killers—terrorists—it is only just that they should be released. That is a political consideration. But clearly it is one that most noble Lords believe is correct.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I apologise for having spoken from a sedentary position. Yes, the law did go wrong. And your Lordships' House unanimously concluded, on 23rd June, that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice and that the judicial findings which supported conviction were fundamentally flawed on the affidavit evidence placed in the Library of the House. The law got it wrong, full-stop.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: The argument could not be made better. I understand that Parliament is the highest court in the land—except, of course, Brussels; but let us not go down the road of that argument this evening. I do not want to lose any more friends than I have lost already—or perhaps I might make a few. If my noble friend is right, if that is the conclusion that has been reached, why are these men still in prison? There is no need for this amendment once these men are out. Let them be out of prison and the amendment will go away.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, suggested that he was horrified by my action in bringing some air of equivalence between these young men and the terrorists. How strange. I did not hear him express his horror when the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested that they might apply for their release under the provisions of the Bill as though they were terrorists. At Second Reading, the noble Lord indeed said that they could apply under the terms of the Bill. That is equivalence if ever I heard it.
Lord Dubs: The noble Lord knows that I said then, and I re-stated today, that because they were convicted of scheduled offences they would come under the scope of the Bill. I made that point on an earlier occasion in this House when I was asked whether they would be worse off as a result of the Bill than they would otherwise be. I made it clear that they would not be worse off.
Lord Tebbit: I understand that. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, should not be too touchy. I do not wish to be offensive towards him. He was not the target of my remarks. But the fact is that the noble Lord made it perfectly plain that there is equivalence in the Bill: that
1080
both the guardsmen and the terrorists were guilty of scheduled offences and the guardsmen could take advantage of the Bill in order to be released. I am merely making sure that they will be released under the provisions of the Bill by insisting that no one else is released before they are.
I entirely accept that the Government have now shifted radically from the view, expressed not many months ago, that six years was too little for these men to the view that they should be let out, as I understand it, either by a judicial process or by a political process. I repeat that I do not care which it is. However, I know that the judicial process is uncertain and that, once the Bill has passed through this House, we shall have no leverage to insist that the men be released. Until the Bill goes through this House, we have some leverage. I do not propose to relent from my determination that that leverage should be used.
Tonight is not the occasion to take that decision, but we shall come back to this matter on Report, when noble Lords throughout the House will have had ample time to consider the issues and when there will have been further time for the Secretary of State to read these papers—of course, not hurriedly; of course, very carefully; but perhaps with a sense that time is not necessarily on her side. If I correctly detect the mood of this Chamber and of a number of noble Members to whom I have spoken, it is far from impossible that this amendment should be carried on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Commissioners]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
("Chairman
A1. The Secretary of State shall appoint a chairman, or joint chairmen, from among the Commissioners.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 10, line 28, after ("chairman") insert ("(or joint chairmen)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 10, line 35, leave out ("with the second") and insert ("on").
The noble Lord said: The amendment sounds a little complicated but is in fact an extremely simple amendment which refers to the date of the first annual report of the commissioners. The expectation is that the first commissioners will be appointed soon after the Bill comes into force. Clearly, there will be intense interest in their work. As the Bill stands, no annual report is proposed until some time after 31st March 2000. The paper says that the board of commissioners is expected to have completed its assessments by the end of June 1999. By that time, if all goes well, the commissioners' work will be almost over. It seems right, therefore, that

1081
the first annual report should be on 31st March next year and not postponed until the year 2000. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Chelitenham: I rise to support this amendment. I am amazed that the Treasury let the Government get away without having financial costs reported annually forthwith.
Lord Dubs: I hear the arguments put forward. Of course there will be interest in the work of the commissioners and it would be helpful if the publication date of the first report was earlier. For that reason the Government accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Commissioners' Procedure]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 11, line 17, at end insert—
("(b) confer functions on the chairman (or on joint chairmen, jointly or concurrently).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: With regard to the last amendment, I should like to say thank you. With regard to this amendment, this part of the Bill is concerned with the order-making powers of the Secretary of State and this particular bit gives the Secretary of State power to lay down that prisoners cannot represent prisoners in matters concerning the Bill.
It seems to me wholly wise that prisoners should not represent other prisoners in their dealings with the board and with the authorities. That is why I do not want to see this left as a question of "may"—as a power which the Secretary of State may or may not use. That leaves the Secretary of State open to political lobbying and to the expectation of lobbying about it. Given the devious nature of negotiations with terrorist authorities—of which some of us have had experience—this sort of thing can easily be used as some sort of bargaining counter. It is much better to settle the matter now. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: This amendment relates to the rules of procedure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may make. Those rules are still in preparation.
I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. At the same time, the circumstances in Northern Ireland are such that in some cases a prisoner may wish to be represented by someone he considers to be a colleague. For that reason the provision was intended to allow the Secretary of State to make rules that would prevent such representation but which did not require her to do so.
I can give an undertaking to the Committee that, if the rules do not prevent a prisoner being represented by another prisoner, the intention would be to require that the prisoner had the agreement of the commissioners that he might be so represented. We consider that if that course were to taken it would provide the necessary
1082
safeguard. For those reasons I believe that the amendment is not necessary and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not sure that I entirely accept that the amendment is not necessary because the Minister used the word "if" in the middle of all that. Nevertheless, I shall take time to consider what he said and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 11, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 50 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 51.
The purpose of this amendment is illustrated by this weekend. If commissioners make a decision in Northern Ireland, whichever way they make it—I do not question the decision—the chances are that half the Province or a hefty percentage of it, will be upset by it. If a decision has to be made as to the order of applications, the commissioners will be put in the same situation as were the commissioners of parades this weekend. If they are left to deal with them in order of receipt, that would be fairer and lead to fewer problems.
I need not extend my arguments further as the Minister used them at the opening of this Committee stage to move the amendment for a joint chairman on the basis that in presenting to Northern Ireland it is better that we have a situation where there is seen to be fairness and understanding rather than argument at the point of decision. I am sure that those arguments apply as much to the amendment about joint chairmen as to moving that Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 mean that decisions are made according to the Bill and not the emotions of the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Despite the lateness of the hour, I rise to support the amendment. I do not know in what other order the applications could be treated which would produce an impression of fairness. This is an acutely sensitive matter, as we have discussed all through the evening, in which sensibilities will be quivering and people will be waiting to see whether one community is favoured over the other and whether particular prisoners are favoured over others. I recommend to the Government that they think seriously about the amendment as being the best way to demonstrate that there is no fix and that this is being done properly and in sequence.
Viscount Brookeborough: I rise to support the amendment because I believe that it is there for the protection of the commissioners. I am sure that not many people envy the job of the parades commissioners. Neither will they probably do so in the case of these

1083
commissioners. They should have all the protection possible by our making the decisions here within which they work.
Lord Dubs: The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, has identified an important part of the work of the commissioners; that is, the management of the process of considering applications. The Government expect that the commissioners are likely to receive in excess of 400 applications shortly after the Bill comes into force. Those applications are likely to be received over a relatively short period of time but it will take time to consider each application separately. As such, it will be important that the applications are dealt with in a coherent manner by the commissioners to ensure that prisoners are dealt with fairly.
While the commissioners may wish to take account of when an application is received, they may also decide to take account of matters such as when the prisoner would be released if he received a declaration. The Government would not want to prevent the commissioners from making such provision and so cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It would mean, in effect, that almost the random factor of when applications are received in the post would determine when they had to be decided. Clearly, if the commissioners believe that some prisoners would be released quickly because they had reached that point in their eligibility while others would not, it would surely make sense to have a system of
1084
priority rather than simply to deal with them in the order in which they are received. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I thank the Minister for his answer. At this stage in the evening I will not pursue the amendment. However, I find his answer unsatisfactory because unless this decision-making has an openness and transparency we will head for further problems and further disputes, as we saw this weekend. I shall withdraw the amendment but I wish to return to the matter at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Pesticides Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.

Data Protection Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.