Home Page

Column 499

Points of Order

3.31 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, which is of some delicacy, Madam Speaker. On Tuesday 27 June, BBC Scotland and a programme called "Scottish Lobby" propose to have parliamentary awards. I do not know whether it is proper for the BBC to award Members of Parliament parliamentary awards according to criteria decided by the BBC. It is a matter of some concern when the Office of Speaker becomes involved. It is understood that you, Madam Speaker, are going to present the awards. I earnestly ask for reflection as to whether, with all the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons, your Office should be involved--perhaps without any sort of judgment by the Speaker--in awarding awards to parliamentarians on a pretty invidious basis. Whatever the basis, you have to be above such battles.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has written to me on more than one occasion about the matter. As with a number of issues that he pursues, the hon. Gentleman has pursued this one with me now for more than four weeks. I have taken sound advice from many of his colleagues, particularly from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who leads for the Opposition on Scottish matters, as well as from many other colleagues. I am not adjudicating, but I consider it to be a privilege and honour simply to make the presentation to one or two of my colleagues on whichever side of the House they may sit.

Mrs. Helen Liddell (Monklands, East): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise in view of the developments over the weekend on trading in PowerGen shares. I am aware that the Financial Secretary made a statement to the House on Friday afternoon. In view of the growing seriousness of the issues raised, particularly in relation to the Treasury's role, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer approached you, Madam Speaker, to say that he is prepared to appear before the House to make a statement on those serious matters?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Lady indicated, the Minister did not make a statement on Friday; I allowed a private notice question. I have not heard since that any Minister is seeking to make a statement.

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could we have a further investigation of Welsh questions? I appreciate that we have asked you to investigate that in the past, but after today, I think that it is necessary that the matter should be looked at again. I am complaining not for myself because I was fortunate enough to be called to ask a supplementary question, but because hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies and who tabled questions failed to be called today.

Today, eight Labour Members were called, with four Conservative Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies and one Liberal Democrat who does not

Column 500

represent a Welsh constituency. Five hon. Members who do not represent Welsh constituencies were called compared with eight who do. That is out of 38 Welsh Members. We have the opportunity to ask questions only once a month and surely that right should be given to Welsh constituencies and Welsh Members.

I notice that that does not happen in Scottish questions, for some unknown reason. Therefore, I suggest that we look yet again at the matter. Perhaps the Government Whip who deals with Welsh matters could persuade his colleagues not to use up the time that Welsh Members should have to ask Welsh questions.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Member appreciates, I deal with Welsh questions in the same way that I deal with Scottish questions. This is, of course, a United Kingdom Parliament and when hon. Members from any part of the House table questions, they will be called to put them and called for supplementaries if they should rise.

I have noticed today that we have not moved as quickly as we normally do with Welsh questions. To some extent, that is because we tend to get long questions and we get long answers, too. If they were much more brisk, we would make further progress and the hon. Gentleman would be much happier than he is at the present time, although I see him with his usual smile on his face.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have no inside information about who will get the Scottish parliamentary awards but I have some suggestions. Would it not be preferable if you were to nominate one or two Scottish Members to give awards for the journalists in the Gallery? It would not be proper for those who do not manage to stay for Adjournment debates on Scottish sewage and other such matters to be considered in that respect. It would be much more fun for us to adjudicate for once on the qualities, persistence and abilities of those who spend so much of their time telling us what we ought to be doing.

Madam Speaker: I could agree to the hon. Member's suggestion only if those nominated worked 12 or 14-hour days in that Gallery and stayed to the very end.

BILL PRESENTED

Representation of the People (Amendment)

Mr. Jeff Rooker, supported by Mr. Harry Barnes, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Don Foster, Sir David Knox, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Trimble, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. George Walden, presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985 so as to prevent certain potential abuses of electoral registration, proxy voting and overseas electors' declarations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Column 501

Northern Ireland

3.37 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,

That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.

It is just over a year since the House last considered whether to renew for a further year the principal provisions in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. It was a wise measure to provide for the renewal of these temporary provisions every year if they are to survive.

I will, for the only time today, indulge in a quotation from what I said in last year's debate--it is a short one:

"The Act needs to achieve a balance between safeguarding the rights of the individual and providing condign measures against terrorists and the organisations that sustain them."--[ Official Report , 24 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 267.]

I think it right to acknowledge at the beginning that exceptional measures of this kind, enacted in the first place in order to meet exceptional threats to life and liberty, tend to develop an adhesive quality of their own-- that is to say, they are more likely to stick than to be dropped as time goes by. It is easier to react to a sudden crisis by imposing such measures than it is to acquire sufficient confidence to surrender them in response to an improvement in the scene. Members of Parliament and Ministers in particular need to remind themselves of that truth. Circumstances do change and, happily, in Northern Ireland they have, in the past 12 months, changed dramatically for the better, as I shall illustrate. So it behoves us all, I suggest, to examine carefully whether, in the new circumstances, the former balance needs adjusting or whether it still needs to be maintained.

I want it to be known in the House and outside that, in proposing the renewal of these provisions for a further year, I accept that the burden of proof rests with me. It is right to speak and to think of "the new circumstances" rather than of "today's circumstances". There is a danger, if we think only of what things are like today, that we may not give sufficient thought for what, on the basis of such objective evidence as is available, they foreseeably might be like tomorrow and what they foreseeably might be like next month. No one can be sure what will happen, of course; we can only go by outward and visible signs of other people's true intentions and then try to interpret them sensibly. In other words, like insurers, we have to assess the risks for the people for whom we are responsible. That is a concept and a duty to which I shall return.

What are the new circumstances? They are as dramatic as they are welcome-- and overdue. More than nine months have now gone by since what has come to be known as the republican ceasefire and nearly eight months since its loyalist counterpart. Many factors have, doubtless, contributed to the ceasefires. Foremost among them, to which the whole House will wish to pay tribute, are the extraordinary courage and steadfastness of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the other security forces, and the staunchness of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.

We should remind ourselves, however, of the hideous terrorist crimes committed in 1994 alone, before the ceasefires occurred. For if present circumstances suggest

Column 502

that a reversion to violence is being retained as an option, those are the kind of crimes that may again be perpetrated. Those are the crimes from which it is our duty to protect the public, as best we may. From January to June 1994, republican groups murdered 17 people and loyalists 27. I shall cite just three instances, each horrific and each leaving a trail of bereavement and pain.

On 13 May last year, the Provisional IRA murdered a civilian cleaner in his car as he was driving with his family in Lurgan. His three-year-old daughter, Emma, was blown out of the car and severely injured. On 18 June, loyalist gunmen walked into a bar in Loughinisland where people were watching the World cup on television. They sprayed automatic gunfire into the crowd, murdering six people including an 87-year-old man. In August, Mr. Telford Withers, a part-time Ulster Defence Regiment soldier, was murdered in his shop at Crossgar by a gunman. None of those crimes, nor any of similar character that preceded them, never mind by whom they were committed, should ever be forgotten.

Foremost among the new circumstances, however, is the fact that, since the ceasefires, terrorist activity has markedly diminished. People throughout the Province are relishing a return to what the rest of us have always called normality, yet which so very many of them have never experienced in their lives. Yet I cannot say that there has been no major terrorist atrocity since then; there has been. In November last year, Mr. Frank Kerr, a postal worker in Newry, was attacked and brutally shot dead in an armed robbery. He was fighting to prevent the theft of public money. That crime was planned and executed by the Provisional IRA organisation in South Armagh. Some £130,000 was stolen, and although central authority within the Provisional IRA denied authorising the raid--and implied disapproval of it--none of the money has been returned.

Since the ceasefires, in Enniskillen, Newry and--most

recently--Belfast, a total of four viable explosive devices have been found, fortunately before they could go off. Had they done so, the toll in life, limb and property could have been terrible. In no way should the Government or the House distinguish between such crimes according to whether republicans or so-called loyalists commit them. It matters not to the victim, and we have to judge how best to protect potential victims in future by means of legislation. It remains the case that paramilitaries on both sides, and not only the principal organisations, are still engaging in terrorist-related activity. Let us look at some examples. Both sides seek money, and they go after it by robbery, by extortion with intimidation and by the criminal extraction of money from charities, clubs and ostensibly legitimate businesses. They are involved increasingly in the drug trafficking that makes the lives of so many young people wretched. For no less political motives, they are engaged in other criminally violent activities, too. In particular, they continue to seek to impose their will on communities by threats, intimidation and brutal beatings. Indeed, from 31 August until the end of May, there were 131 horrific so-called punishment attacks. Sixty-two of them have been attributed to loyalists, including 13 shootings before the loyalist ceasefire. Sixty-nine have been attributed to republicans. Threats and intimidation often accompany those attacks. The thugs who perpetrate those sickening crimes often use baseball bats, clubs and cudgels with protruding

Column 503

nails to beat their victims' limbs and torsos, smashing their bones and wrecking their internal organs. The attacks are capped with threats of death if the victims tell the RUC. Additionally, people are forced to leave their homes and neighbourhoods on pain of death by shooting. Others are ordered to remain away. Some voluntary groups fear that the number of people excluded from their homes by those wicked means may run into hundreds.

Neither ought we to forget that there remain other

organisations--equally deadly--which do not subscribe to the ceasefires. The INLA, which has carried out some of the most appalling atrocities of the past 25 years, has not mounted any attacks since the ceasefires commenced but has not yet declared a ceasefire of its own. The threat that the INLA poses was aptly demonstrated on 4 April, when the Gardai intercepted a van and a car north of Dublin containing four suspected senior INLA members, and recovered six automatic rifles, 20 pistols and more than 2,500 rounds of ammunition. That the arms were destined for Northern Ireland is beyond doubt. We can only speculate on whether and where they were to be used.

The INLA is not the only such group. Republican Sinn Fein has vowed to oppose the Provisional IRA ceasefire and to mount attacks in Northern Ireland. The threat that it poses is taken very seriously indeed, both by the RUC and by the Gardai. Only last month, the Gardai arrested six men and a woman following the discovery of arms in Dublin. All seven are suspected to have connections with Republican Sinn Fein, and have since been charged with firearms offences.

Consistent with all that terrorist activity, terrorist organisations on both sides continue to train teams for operations, to research improvised weapons, to identify potential targets and--crucially--to maintain undiminished their stock of weapons and explosives.

I take no perverse--or any--pleasure in telling the House about all this. Sometimes Ministers are upbraided for going on about it and spoiling the party. "Move the peace process forward," we are told. The implication is that we should ignore it all, or view it indulgently. To contrast it with the professed assurance that peace has come for good is said to be unhelpful. But what is really needed to move the peace process forward is the ending of actions that rupture or menace the peace. Otherwise, how are those who question the compatibility of those activities with professions of peace to be reassured? More immediately, how are we in the House to be reassured, who have to assess the risk to the lives of those for whom we in this United Kingdom Parliament are responsible?

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): I believe that the peace process should be advanced, and the Secretary of State will no doubt accept that we all deplore the crimes to which he has referred. Violence and thuggery can never be justified under any circumstances.

Will the Secretary of State concede that the organisation that was established in 1970 with the sole aim of driving Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom through force of every kind, including violence and the terrible atrocities that were committed mainly in Northern Ireland but also in places such as Birmingham, simply did not succeed? It was the will of the House and of the country as a whole that that violence should not be

Column 504

victorious. Therefore, when the IRA announced in August-September last year the end of its campaign of violence, it was a victory against terrorism.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The IRA certainly did not succeed and it has not advanced very much in 25 years. However, I am afraid that many thousands of people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere look at the maintenance of weapons and explosives and see that as incompatible with the profession that peace is here for good. They hope that peace is here for good and they take note of what the hon. Gentleman and others have said, but they also take note of the activities that I itemised a few minutes ago.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): I was a very close friend of Mr. Frank Kerr and I do not like Mr. Kerr's death being used as part of a political argument. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the peace process to which he refers is one that he himself has helped to advance by removing exclusion orders as they applied to people coming into England, Scotland and Wales; that he himself has helped to advance by ordering the opening of border roads; that he himself has helped to advance by meeting with the leader of Sinn Fein; and that he himself has helped to advance through the Minister of State's entering into formal party discussions with the leader of Provisional Sinn Fein and those who represent the loyalist paramilitary groupings?

One of the problems that some of us have is: how can one be half in and half out of a peace process? Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity today to explain to those who have that difficulty how one can be half in and half out of a process that the Secretary of State has, to his credit, helped to sustain?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I can give very readily to the hon. Gentleman, who has a most worthy record in those matters, the justification that he seeks. Those matters with which he began his list resulted from the advice of the Chief Constable, my principal security adviser, that it was now possible to open the border roads and to lift exclusion orders in the light of a diminution in the threat. The same goes for a whole raft of other measures that have been taken and with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is very willing to deal if need be at a later stage.

However, it is a very different matter if I am then asked to enter into negotiations with a party that is associated with a paramilitary organisation which is retaining its hold upon its armaments and which has used them in the past to sustain its party's political objective.

Mr. Mallon rose --

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman again, but I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again. As an eminent lawyer, he must realise that today he is about to renew legislation that will effect the closure of border roads at the same time as he has given instructions for the opening of border roads. Does he accept the wider point that, at the same time as renewing the legislation, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are affecting us in many ways by operating as Saatchi and Saatchi for the Provisional Sinn Fein? Since peace has been called, they have kept those people on the front pages of every newspaper and in the lead stories of

Column 505

every news bulletin for up to nine months. Will he explain to those of us who have fought against the operations of the IRA and loyalist paramilitary groupings for more than 30 years, how that can be equated with his refusal not to renew the legislation?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: If I am allowed to continue, I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman and the House the need, as insurance, to retain the provisions. We have not formed that judgment alone and unaided, but with the benefit of the advice of an independent reviewer of the operation of the Act over the past year, Mr. John Rowe QC. Had I and the Government agreed to enter into negotiations with Sinn Fein, as we are happy to do with other parties--including the hon. Gentleman's party--which have never been tarnished with any association with paramilitary violence, that would have left his party in a dangerous position, as Sinn Fein would have been able to say, with the support of the Provisional IRA, that tactics such as they have employed actually secured political advance. That would have left the hon. Gentleman's party, which has always subjected itself to the discipline of constitutional politics, in a dangerous position and a most undeserved one.

Mr. Mallon rose --

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must continue.

I should like to outline the principal ways in which, in the past four years, the Act has delivered the greater part of Parliament's legislative response to the terrorist threat from both sides, and to view those provisions in the light of the new circumstances. Part I of the Act creates the so-called scheduled offences, which are offences commonly committed by terrorists, requiring special treatment as regards bail, remands, trial, evidence, sentence and the remission of sentence. They are tried by judge alone in the so-called Diplock courts.

Part II makes special provision for powers to stop, to arrest, to search and to seize property. Part III creates special offences against public security and order, including directing terrorist offences and belonging to such an organisation. Part IV provides for detention by order, otherwise known as detention. That power is currently suspended.

Part VI makes special provision in respect of persons in police custody under the terrorism provisions for their management and their questioning in holding centres such as Castlereagh.

Part VII makes special provision for the confiscation of proceeds of terrorist activities and for specially authorised investigators.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): Will the Minister give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall continue with my speech a little longer, if I may.

I do not propose to rehearse today the details of the provisions. They are well described in the latest report of the independent reviewer, Mr. Rowe, presented in May this year.

The Act represents a wide spectrum of special provisions, and it is right that its operation from year to year should be independently reviewed. In addition to Mr.

Column 506

Rowe's report, the House has the report of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, whom I appointed two years ago as an independent commissioner to review the operation of the holding centres. I am grateful to each of those distinguished gentlemen and to the deputy commissioner for the holding centres, Dr. Bill Norris, for their work. Dr. Norris has made over 80 unannounced visits to the holding centres.

Mr. Rowe, after wide consultation and dispassionate assessment of the evidence, concludes that it is necessary to renew each section of the Act currently in force for a further year. His judgment concurs with our own. We consider that the continuing terrorist-related activity that I mentioned leaves us no prudent alternative, although the special powers that the Act provides are being used less and less, I am glad to say. The latent threat remains, and in our judgment, the Act itself remains necessary for the time being.

Mr. Rowe recommends, however, that during the coming year the Act should be kept under review with a view to using the powers in section 69 to suspend individual provisions. We are happy to accept that wholeheartedly.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley): Appendix A on page 61 of the Rowe report gives the list of persons and organisations who gave assistance in discussion and representation. One is the Anglo-Irish Secretariat. As the Secretary of State knows--although this was not his doing--the secretariat was designed to be a joint instrument of the two Governments. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the basis on which the secretariat gave oral and written evidence and what it conveyed?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is a good question to ask Mr. Rowe, but I do not know the answer at the moment.

When, on advice, I consider that a particular provision is no longer necessary, I shall not hesitate to invite the House to approve an order suspending it. The suspension could be reversed at any time if necessary. After all, it is the Government's aim to remove those provisions altogether in due course--but Mr. Rowe concludes, and we agree, that we have not reached that time yet.

Mr. Corbyn: As the Secretary of State is clearly determined to have the order approved today, will he give the House an idea of when he will suspend the section relating to Diplock courts and restore the right of trial by jury, which would be seen as a major contribution to the peace process?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The answer is: as soon as I am advised that intimidation has diminished to such a degree that it will be safe once again in the North--it remains unsafe in the Republic--to entrust such cases to a jury that will no longer fear intimidation. The original Diplock report dealt with that matter in great thoroughness.

Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Mr. Rowe have again advocated the introduction of some kind of electronic recording of interviews with suspects held under the prevention of terrorism Act. In the past, I had to balance the strong arguments in favour of recording against the advice of the Chief Constable of the RUC that to introduce any form of electronic recording for terrorism suspects would not be in the overall interests of justice.

Column 507

The change to the security situation clearly has a bearing on where the balance of advantage now lies. It introduces other factors, too. The number of suspects being questioned about offences connected with terrorism has, since the ceasefire, reduced by some two thirds. Assuming that the continued absence of violence will allow the downward trend to continue, there will, I hope, come a time when the need to use the more rigorous regime afforded by the holding centres will disappear entirely. That will mean that the ordinary Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 procedures will suffice for all suspects. That must be our aim, although we are not there yet.

Having consulted the Chief Constable, however, I can say that, if it still appears necessary to do so at all in the light of the developing security situation, the Government will propose introducing an electronic recording scheme. That will be in the Bill that will be required next Session to replace the present Act. Such a scheme will require statutory provision, because it remains important for arrangements to be in place to prevent tapes from being disclosed by those who might have sinister motives. The House would, of course, have ample opportunity to consider the detail during that Bill's passage.

With the decline in terrorist activity, the use of the holding centres has also diminished. It is my hope that that will continue, although the police will continue vigorously to investigate earlier terrorist crimes, no matter how old--but we are always determined to demonstrate that suspects, who may have been involved in the most horrific of crimes, can have no legitimate fears about ill-treatment. We have in place codes of practice, and since the previous debate it has been agreed that Sir Louis will be able to sit in on the interviews. That should provide another reassurance and safeguard. Sir Louis once again touches on the material conditions of detention in the holding centres. He continues to believe that the facilities at Castlereagh should not remain in commission any longer than absolutely necessary. I am content with that. However, I believe that it is sensible in the current changing security situation for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland to pause and review its overall police building programme. It accepts the need to improve standards of accommodation, as does the RUC. The important question of a replacement for Castlereagh will therefore remain under consideration. Sir Louis makes other recommendations, with which the Minister of State will be able to deal should that be necessary later.

The context of conditions in which persons are held in custody permits me to announce, in respect of convicted prisoners, the enhancement in three respects of a compassionate leave scheme established in Northern Ireland for many years. It has enabled prisoners to maintain family contacts at times of acute domestic difficulty. The arrangements have been of particular importance to a prisoner population the majority of whom serve long sentences. Over the years, the conditions attaching to those arrangements have been strictly adhered to by prisoners to an impressive

degree--including prisoners convicted of the most serious offences--and that has contributed to a wide understanding of and support for the measures among community leaders and the general public in Northern Ireland. All such schemes, however, are capable of improvement, and in its 1995-96 business plan, the Prison Service declared its intention to develop further

Column 508

opportunities for prisoners to maintain close family ties. A lot of changes to those arrangements have been working successfully now for almost a year and I consider that the time is now right to make further improvements, which I believe will receive widespread support in the community in Northern Ireland.

Accordingly, and with immediate effect, I intend to take three steps. First, the maximum period of compassionate leave that the Prison Service may authorise for attendance at the funeral of a parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild is currently 24 hours. In future, the Prison Service will be authorised to permit a period of absence of up to 48 hours, subject to a satisfactory assessment of risk. That will not of course apply automatically in every case. The length of absence will depend on individual circumstances.

Secondly, prisoners may apply for compassionate leave in the event of the serious illness of a parent, child, brother or sister. That may be granted if the Prison Service is satisfied as to the circumstances and the degree of risk. In future, that arrangement will extend to the serious illness of grandparents and grandchildren. It will be for the prisoner or his family to satisfy the Prison Service as to the nature and extent of the illness.

Lastly, prisoners who have served at least 10 years and who have a close relative who has been unable through medical disability to visit the prison for at least 18 months, may currently apply for a short period of compassionate leave. Two such periods may be granted in any one year provided the prisoner presents no undue risk to public safety. The value of that facility has declined with the availability of other forms of leave to prisoners who have served 11 years or more. Yet the scheme has worked well and prisoners have shown willingness to honour its conditions.

Accordingly, I intend to reduce the qualifying length of sentence from 10 years to six years. Those three changes are modest but none the less useful extensions of arrangements that had been working well for prisoners, their families and the public.

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): While we are on the subject of prisoners, not least in the light of much media speculation over the past weekend, will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the situation with regard to Private Clegg?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and with the House's permission I shall do so very briefly.

There is no question of any linkage between the case of Private Clegg and any consideration of possible changes to remission rates or other regime changes for prisoners in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Those are matters solely for the British Government to decide. The Life Sentence Review Board met to consider Private Clegg's case, along with several others, on 6 June. I am considering its recommendations, and I shall consult the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge as necessary.

That is the standard procedure, quasi-judicial in character, which is followed in all life sentence cases. As the law requires, Private Clegg's case will be treated in accordance with that established practice, solely on its

Column 509

merits. There is no question of one law for the security forces and another for the rest, as Private Clegg's prosecution and conviction plainly demonstrated.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South): I am grateful for the Secretary of State's written responses to questions that I have asked him in the past. As the case has been raised today, can he say when he is likely to make his decision on the recommendation that he says has been sent to him? I ask because of the anguish that Private Clegg and his family are undergoing.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has most assiduously represented the concerns of his constituent. I am not able to give the information that he seeks. As I have said, I shall have to consult. I shall do so with all practical speed.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): All of us on the Government Benches welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's robust statement that there is to be no linkage, but will he reassure us none the less that, when it comes to Private Clegg himself, there can be no question of the consultations involving questions being asked about the impact on certain parts of the community of justice being done for this unfortunate soldier?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that that is implicit in what I have said. If it is not, it should be explicit. Those matters will be dealt with not by reference to political expediency, but by reference to the merits of each individual case.

The ceasefires have met with a ready response by the Government. On advice from the Chief Constable, many important relaxations have been made in security measures. Those have already been mentioned in part by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Dr. Joe Hendron (Belfast, West): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must now conclude my speech. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with further matters if that is required. I shall not detain the House further now.

I hope that the trend of relaxation can continue, as it will if we are advised that the terrorist threat continues to diminish. I know that that advice will be positive. It will be measured as the gravity of our responsibilities demands.

In the second half of the year, we shall have to make decisions about the legislation that will be necessary to replace the current Act when it expires completely next year. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, there will have

"to be a wide-ranging look at all the options"

for permanent counter-terrorism organisation once a lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask for your advice. The Secretary of State was good enough to give way to three interventions about the Private Clegg affair. He turned down an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who represented a person who was killed, as was proven in three courts, by Private Clegg. In the

Column 510

circumstances, do you not feel, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State should reconsider his decision not to give way to my hon. Friend?

Madam Speaker rose --

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I need not trouble you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Courteous as always. Thank you very much.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron).

Next Section

  Home Page