---

Powell, William (Corby)

Price, Sir David

Raffan, Keith

Redwood, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Riddick, Graham

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Sayeed, Jonathan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Shersby, Michael

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Speller, Tony

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

---

Column 854

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Summerson, Hugo

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thorne, Neil

Thurnham, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Trippier, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Wheeler, Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Wiggin, Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Winterton, Nicholas

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Tom Sackville and

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made : No. 7, in page 1, line 11, leave out from prison' to end of line 14.

No. 9, in page 1, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) or (b) of,-- [Mrs. Rumbold.]

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 3, at end insert

or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this we may take the following amendments : No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, at end insert-- (4) In section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (offence of assisting escape by conveying things into prisons) after the word "prisoner", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "sends anything (by post or otherwise) into a prison or to a prisoner" and for the words "seven years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".

(5) In section 30 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 (offence of rescue or assisting other prisoners) for the words "five years" there shall be substituted the words "ten years".'.

No. 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out and Wales only' and add , Wales and Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Trimble : On Second Reading, I asked why a measure that had been described as important and necessary, given the situation that had arisen in prisons in England and Wales, should not be extended to Northern Ireland, where the situation is equally serious. I asked the same question in Committee ; on neither occasion was I given an answer.

Since then an answer has arrived, in the form of a letter from the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. I received the letter yesterday afternoon ; I believe that other hon. Members who served on the Committee with me received copies earlier this afternoon. I feel that I should put on record the reasons given by the Minister for not extending the legislation to Northern Ireland. The letter states : "When the issue was raised with us last June, Peter Brooke and John Belstead gave very careful consideration to the possibility of extension but concluded that, while there were arguments in favour of the introduction of a similar offence (among which was that of the difficulty of sustaining prosecutions for some offences committed during a mutiny or an escape attempt) extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland was neither necessary nor desirable.

We have not, of course, faced a similar situation to that experienced in some English prisons in the early 1990s and Peter Brooke further believed that to introduce such a provision without that background would do nothing to enhance public support for the NI Prison Service and confidence in the strategy for the service which had been launched at that time.

---

Column 855

I have noted your reference to the paramilitary campaign for segregation in HM Prison, Belfast and to the explosion which resulted in the deaths of two prisoners. Tragic as this last incident was I have to say that I do not accept that it could be considered as mutiny. But even if it could, those involved would almost certainly be charged with murder and other very serious offences for which the penalties exceed that provided for mutiny in the Prison Security Bill. Similarly, it is our view that Prison rules and the criminal law already provide adequate sanctions for the other offences which have been committed in the Prison."

6.15 pm

The Minister says that the murder of two prisoners in the Crumlin road prison was not mutiny. That may be true of the specific event, but the specific event marked the end of a series of events which undoubtedly involved an intention to overthrow lawful authority within the prison.

I was interested to hear the Minister of State, Home Office mention recent disturbances in Moorland in a previous debate, and cite the scant regard for the public property that those disturbances involved as a reason for the legislation. Let me remind her that the campaign in Crumlin road prison also involved considerable destruction of public property.

That prison may not yet have experienced a riot on the scale of the Strangeways disturbances ; but the wrecking of the dining hall a few months ago is just one of many incidents there that demonstrate a clear disregard for public property. I had the doubtful pleasure of touring the Crumlin road prison last Monday, and I saw plenty of evidence of that. I do not think that we have been given sufficient ground for deeming Northern Ireland's circumstances to be different. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office made a significant concession in his letter when he referred to

"the difficulty of sustaining prosecutions for some offences committed during a mutiny or an escape attempt".

That is surely an argument in favour of extending the legislation. We are left with the contrary argument that

"to intoduce such a provision would do nothing to enhance public support for the Prison Service."

That is an argument based on expediency.

The present truce in the Crumlin road prison will last until Lord Colville reports, but it will not endure beyond then. After the report, there is likely to be further trouble, perhaps on a substantial scale : there are plenty of scores still to be settled in that prison. During the current lull before the storm, one wonders what impression the Government's present conduct will make. They say that the Bill is necessary to deal with the situation in England ; the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says, "It may be necessary, but I am scared of the effect that it will have on some sections of opinion in Northern Ireland."

What message will such a weak-kneed approach send to terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland? In the present circumstances, it is likely to lead them to believe that they can plan their mutinies with relative impunity.

Amendment No. 2 deals with quite a narrow point. Clause 2 of the Bill plugs a gap in section 39 of the Prison Act 1952, to ensure that items sent to a prison by post

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Or otherwise.

Mr. Trimble : I thank the hon. Gentleman. The aim is to ensure that items sent to a prison by post or otherwise will fall within the definition of assisting a prisoner to escape. That is clearly based on events in Brixton prison.

---

Column 856

The point was made in Committee--notably by the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr)--that it was illogical that the Bill should not cover Northern Ireland, especially when one realises that a prisoner in London receiving a parcel from Belfast would be covered by the Bill but that the sender would not. Therefore, it is illogical to extend section 39 of the Prison Act 1952 while not making an equivalent extension to the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) Act 1953. The Northern Ireland Office said in its letter :

"So far as the point about the posting into a prison of a parcel in relation to clause 2(1)(a) is concerned, the particular problem does not arise because of the wording of the parallel offence in section 33 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953."

I shall deal with that point in detail.

Section 39 of the English Act states :

"Any person who aids any prisoner in escaping or attempting to escape from a prison or who, with intent to facilitate the escape of any prisoner, conveys any thing into a prison or to a prisoner or places any thing anywhere outside a prison with a view to its coming into the possession of the prisoner, shall be guilty".

The existing section refers to "conveying" and "placing". It is evident that the Home Office believed that conveying and placing did not include posting. That is a reasonable view, and it is why the Government are amending section 39 so that it includes posting. The Northern Ireland Office says that the different wording of section 33 of the Northern Ireland Act obviates the need for a similar amendment, but let us consider section 33 of that Act : "Any person who, with intent to facilitate the escape of any prisoner, conveys or throws or causes to be conveyed or thrown any thing into any prison or to a prisoner or places or throws or causes to be placed or thrown any thing anywhere inside or outside a prison with a view to its coming into the possession of a prisoner shall be guilty".

The section of the Northern Ireland Act also refers to "conveys" as does section 39 of the English Act, but the only thing that it adds to section 39 is "throwing". Is throwing posting? I suppose that one throws things into letter boxes but throwing cannot be regarded as posting.

Therefore, if section 39 of the English Act does not include posting, which seems reasonable, section 33 of the Northern Ireland Act certainly does not include posting. If section 39 is amended to make express reference to posting as the Government propose, any court considering that is bound to say that Parliament has clearly expressed the opinion that the words "conveying" and "placing" in section 39 do not include posting, and, if "conveying" and "placing" in section 39 do not include posting, then conveying, placing and throwing in section 33 cannot include posting. There is a clear gap, and the obvious way to remedy it is to accept amendment No. 2. I fear that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has been poorly advised about the wording of the legislation. When it is examined, it is clear that the Northern Ireland Office's argument does not hold water. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. If not, I shall divide the House, and I advise Conservative hon. Members that, if they vote against the amendment, they will be voting against the clause in the Bill.

Sir John Farr : I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and congratulate him on his initiative and on his perseverance. As he said, he raised this issue--very ably--in Committee, and, like me, on Second Reading.

---

Column 857

For many years, there has been an unfortunate habit, which seems to be dying, of having separate legislation for the mainland, thus separating the needs of Northern Ireland, instead of dealing with them all under United Kingdom legislation. We have increasingly given way to the temptation to have legislation that deals only with Great Britain.

As hon. Members will be aware, this is not the first time that matters of such gravity have been discussed in relation to Northern Ireland. I have heard hon. Members of all parties repeat that there are many reasons why we should move towards legislation covering the whole of the United Kingdom-- in other words, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

One reason is the common-sense reason which, I have found, never appeals to Governments. Apart from that reason, there was a case last summer which involved trainers sent in a parcel from Belfast to a London prison-- Wandsworth, I think. Unbelievably, the parcel contained a firearm which was used seriously to injure a prison officer. Even more importantly, it enabled two vicious IRA killers to escape. If only common sense had applied in the past. I am not saying that it would have affected that incident but I should have thought that, faced with that glaring example, some of my hon. Friends, although they may have been reluctant to accept it, would have seen the common-sense solution which is crying out to be adopted in the Bill. The three amendments which go together are a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has gone. Nevertheless, if we can persuade the Government to accept them as a group, it would make it more difficult for anyone attempting to send a parcel of, for example, trainers from Belfast to the mainland to do so without being caught, because the legislation would be tighter.

As I said, the hon. Member for Upper Bann and I raised the issue on Second Reading and in Committee. I also had access--I dare say that the hon. Gentleman had similar access--to the Home Office. I asked how we could ensure that the common-sense amendments were accepted. The advice that I received through the official channels was that getting sensible amendments accepted in this case--I am talking about United Kingdom legislation, not merely Great Britain or Northern Ireland legislation--had nothing to do with the Home Secretary, but apparently the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland held a different view. I was advised by the authorities to table questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which I have done unsucessfully. Since the introduction of the Bill, I have not been reached in the ballot on Northern Ireland questions. The written replies that I received are wholly ineffective, because they say that the suggestion is not appropriate.

I reinforce what the hon. Member for Upper Bann said. It is not a case of treating Northern Ireland citizens as second-class citizens or anything so silly, but for years some of us have been saying that the more we can associate mainland legislation with United Kingdom legislation--including Northern Ireland--the more sensible it is likely to be in the first place. That applies to this Bill, which would be more likely to be generally acceptable to the

---

Column 858

public if the amendment were adopted. I have pleasure in supporting what the hon. Member for Upper Bann has said.

6.30 pm

Mr. Dickens : I do not wish to detain the House for very long, as hon. Members will want to hear the Minister's reply. However, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on the way in which he moved this amendment. I suspect that the Minister of State has a duty to see that the Bill goes through unamended, but I have tremendous sympathy for the Northern Ireland Members who have brought this amendment forward.

Those who say that a few people in Northern Ireland will be upset if we increase the sentence from seven years to 10 for the purpose of achieving even-handedness vis-a-vis England and Wales do not have a very good argument. The people of Northern Ireland have had their hearts torn out. They must have cried a million tears. The graveyards are full. I do not want to be too emotional, but I must say that what is proposed would not cause any great alarm. I do not think that the people of Northern Ireland would be too fussy about it. In fact, they would be very pleased indeed if the British Parliament--they are as British as we are--were to demonstrate even-handedness between Northern Ireland and England and Wales. That would be a sensible course of action.

However, the Minister of State replying to this debate is not a Northern Ireland Minister and may therefore be in a difficult position. That I understand, but it would be very nice if she were to go at least as far as to say that the matter will be given further very serious consideration, with a view to achieving even handedness. If such an assurance were given, the Northern Ireland Members might consider not forcing the matter to a Division.

I have sympathy with their argument. I do not see the situation from the point of view of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as expressed in the letter from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. I congratulate the Northern Ireland Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on tabling such a sensible and reasonable amendment, which would not upset many people in Northern Ireland and would please most of them.

---