Inside Parliament: Naval College could land Portillo in deep water

A 126-year-old statute has handed MPs and peers a powerful lever over the Government's plans for the Royal Naval College at Greenwich. Though ministers engaged top-drawer estate agents Knight, Frank and Rutley to find a tenant for the 300-year-old glory by the Thames, its use for anything without a close maritime connection would be illegal.

After the storm over the "privatisation" of the college, Michael Portillo, Secretary of State for Defence, ruled out its use as a hotel or a Tesco supermarket.

But prestige flats, boutiques or bank headquarters are still possibilities for the Christopher Wren buildings, provided they are "sympathetic" and the public are assured access to parts such as Painted Hall.

And provided the Government changes the law. During a short debate in the House of Lords yesterday it emerged that legislation for the next session is likely to include the repeal or amendment of an 1869 Act which laid down that the royal hospital - its pre-college role - may not sold or leased to any party except the Royal Navy, institutions of the merchant marine or others having a close and obvious connection with Britain's interests as a maritime nation.

Detailing the Act, Lord Kennet, a Labour peer and wartime sailor, said the sale as proposed was illegal. "What we have here is a prime example of the sale-room state."

Mr Portillo plans to change the law via an Armed Forces Bill to be included in the Queen's Speech. The main purpose of Bill is a five-yearly renewal of forces' discipline provisions. Tacking on a Greenwich clause could make the measure more controversial, enabling opponents of "privatisation" to put pressure on the Government.

Confirming the intention to use the Bill, Earl Howe, a junior defence minister, said the legal position was being clarified. But "to avoid any doubt" an amending clause would be introduced. "There is no question of the Government having acted illegally in what it has done to date."

Opening the debate, Baroness Hamwee, a Liberal Democrat, said public outrage at the sale showed it was "a privatisation too far". And Lord Selsdon, a Conservative and former naval officer, warned that the proposal had the potential to be "a major banana skin" for the Government.

The Commons meanwhile gave speedy approval to legislation to ensure early release of convicted terrorists from Northern Ireland jails. Confidence in the ceasefire means 90 IRA and loyalist prisoners will spend Christmas at home instead of behind bars.

But Sir Patrick Mayhew, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, insisted that his Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill did not amount to an amnesty. "It makes no concession to terrorism at all. It will enable the penal system of Northern Ireland to make a positive, but proportionate and prudent response to the continuance of the ceasefire."

The Bill will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the country so that prisoners will become eligible for release after serving half their sentence. It will end a more stringent two-thirds minimum introduced in 1989 in response to a terrorist campaign which included the Enniskillen bombing and a wave of sectarian murders.

Sir Patrick said the Government should not "seem reluctant to respond in a positive manner" to the changes brought about by the ceasefires. Besides the 90 prisoners to be released before Christmas, 98 will be released on licence in 1996 who would not otherwise have been due out until 1997 or 1998. By the end of the decade, about 340 prisoners out of the 471 to whom the Bill applies will have been released.

Ex-prisoners will be liable for recall if at any point up to the two- thirds point in their sentence, the Secretary of State judges they have become a risk to the safety of others or are likely to commit further offences. The condition is in line with the rest of the UK, but it also seen both as prop to the ceasefires and a safeguard should terrorism return.

A smooth passage for the Bill was assured when Andrew Hunter, the chairman of the Conservative Northern Ireland backbench committee, gave his support for the Bill and when Ulster Unionist John Taylor said the party would not be opposing it.

Mr Taylor nonetheless had reservations. "I do not understand the undue haste in presenting this Bill so promptly without proper consultation with Members of this House."

The Strangford MP also claimed there appeared to be some difference in policy between Sir Patrick and Michael Howard: "At a time when the Home Secretary is going for a hard-line attitude towards sentencing of criminals, there is, in Northern Ireland today, a more liberal regime as far as political prisoners are concerned."