House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Oct 1995

Column 19

Points of Order

3.30 pm

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has there been any mention of a debate in the overspill period or in the next Session of Parliament on the report of the Scott inquiry, especially as today another four people from the firm Ordtech are appealing against a judgment against them, which arose only because the Government did the same as they did during the Matrix Churchill affair--threatened public immunity certificates? The net result is that four people are being hounded in the courts while the Ministers who are on the rack are answering questions very long-windedly and providing more questions for Scott to answer with a view to dragging out the matter beyond the general election.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter of Government business. The hon. Gentleman might put a question to the Leader of the House to find out about business when we come back after prorogation.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware that I have a number of customs officers in my constituency. Many of them are deeply concerned about various statements that were made over the weekend. They wonder whether their jobs are secure as it has been suggested that cannabis should be legalised. Can we have a short statement on the matter as soon as possible?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House know that statements from Ministers are not my business, but I have had no information that a Minister is seeking to make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mo n): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A supplementary question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) wholly and directly related to a matter in my constituency. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady did not have the courtesy to inform me that she was about to refer to it. Will you please remind hon. Members that it is a courtesy in the House that hon. Members should be informed?

Madam Speaker: I noticed that the substantive question did not mention the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Constituencies are often mentioned in supplementary questions. It is extremely difficult always to give Members notice, particularly on the spur of the moment in a supplementary question and often in an exchange across the House during Question Time. As the

Column 20

hon. Gentleman knows, I like Members to be courteous and I hope that they will carry out the proper procedures of the House and inform Members when they are able to do so.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that next Monday we shall debate whether to put into effect the recommendation of the Nolan committee concerning the disclosure of outside financial interests that arise from parliamentary activities. I raise the point of order with you because, in local government, as you probably know, councillors have to declare their interests before they vote. That is very clear and they can be taken to court if they do not do so. When hon. Members vote next Monday, how will it be possible for them to make it perfectly clear that they have a direct interest? It is extremely important because the public will want to know how we go about our business. The Nolan committee has made a firm recommendation. Will you rule it necessary for Members to declare their interests if they are likely to be affected by the ruling, if it is implemented?

Madam Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will keep it in mind at all times and particularly, as the hon. Gentleman says, next Monday, that if they are speaking in the debate, they should make their interests quite clear at its start. That is what the hon. Gentleman seeks.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

Probation

That the Probation (Amendment) Rules 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2622) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

National Health Service

That the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2307) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

National Health Service (Scotland)

That the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2369) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

Column 21

Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill

Order for Second Reading read .

3.34 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I shall describe the purpose of the Bill, the reason for its introduction now, the way in which its provisions would work, and the number of prisoners who would be affected.

The Bill has a simple purpose. It is to restore the practice which existed in Northern Ireland until 1989 and which had obtained since 1976, that all prisoners serving fixed terms of imprisonment, regardless of the nature of their offence, became eligible for release at the halfway point of their sentence.

The Bill will secure that in future, in Northern Ireland as in all other jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, all prisoners will be required to serve a minimum period of 50 per cent. of their sentence. But there is an important further purpose. The Bill provides that those in Northern Ireland released in accordance with the Bill's provisions will, like their counterparts in the other United Kingdom jurisdictions, now be liable for recall to prison. They will be liable for recall if at any point up to the two thirds point in their sentence their continued liberty would present a risk to the safety of others or if they are likely to commit further offences. That is a new provision for Northern Ireland, and a desirable one.

The reason for introducing the Bill now is that the reversion to the former practice that I have described has been made possible because the ceasefires have been maintained for more than a year. The risk of further terrorist-related offences being committed by those offenders whom the Bill affects is seen to be greatly reduced. It is necessary to remind the House of the cumulative security background to the changes that were made in 1989. Parliament then changed the rules for remission of fixed sentences. The House will, of course, remember the IRA's horrifying bombing at Enniskillen in November 1987 of the crowd assembled for the Remembrance day service. Eleven people were murdered then, and many more by far were injured. That outrage was followed by a series of very serious terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland, extending throughout the following year. Attacks upon the security forces, both on and off duty, featured especially in those.

We remember the deaths in June 1988 of six soldiers in bomb attacks after a "fun run" in Lisburn. We remember the deaths of eight soldiers in August, when their coach was bombed at Ballygawley, in County Tyrone. We remember some hideous attacks on civilians as well. Both the republicans and loyalists were responsible for a series of sickening sectarian attacks. The IRA murdered a six-year-old boy and his parents, and murdered three civilians in Londonderry with a bomb meant for the security forces. By the end of 1988, no fewer than 94 people had lost their lives by reason of campaigns of terrorist violence, and there was no sign of any let-up.

Column 22

That was the background to a security review that was undertaken by the Government. In consequence, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, introduced in 1989, contained two provisions regarding sentences imposed upon offenders convicted of terrorist-related offences. The first provided that where a fixed sentence of five years or more had been imposed for such an offence, remission for good conduct should be restricted to a maximum of only one third of the sentence, instead of the previous one half.

The second provided that any such offender who, during a period of release through remission of sentence, committed a further terrorist-related offence, should be required to serve any unexpired portion of the remitted sentence before starting to serve the new one.

Parliament approved each proposal, and the resulting provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989 were continued in force by sections 14 and 15 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. That Act was itself enacted at a time when the terrorist campaigns of violence were still raging. That covers the violent background to the present law, exceptional as it is to Northern Ireland.

The security situation in Northern Ireland today, while it is still horribly blemished, is nevertheless very different. The ceasefires have been maintained for more than a year. Instead of 94 deaths, in the past year two persons have lost their lives, one after being tragically injured in an attack some 22 years before. The risk of terrorist offenders committing further terrorist-related offences is seen to be greatly reduced now.

It is therefore now for decision whether the exceptional restriction introduced in 1989 on the release of such offenders needs to be continued in its effect. I would point out that the Bill leaves untouched the provision that I have just mentioned for serving out the unexpired portion of an earlier sentence.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): Will the Secretary of State redouble his efforts to educate the Home Secretary, so that he understands that the release and transfer of prisoners plays a crucial part in building confidence in the peace process and should not be regarded as a reward? In that context, will he put renewed pressure on the Home Secretary to agree to the urgent transfer of Patrick Kelly and Michael O'Brien from Whitemoor, to prisons either in the north or in the Republic of Ireland, in view of the very compelling and compassionate circumstances surrounding their cases?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but that is quite outside the scope of the Bill. However, I will just say that there is a clear policy regarding the transfer of offenders to the jurisdiction nearest to their homes and families and that the Home Office has pursued that policy consistently. The two prisoners whom he mentioned are prisoners who have never had any domicile in Northern Ireland, but whose domicile is in the Republic and who have not been able to be transferred to the Republic until such time as the Republic's ratification of the European convention on the repatriation of prisoners takes effect. That will be some time next month.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that it is something to do with the Bill.

Column 23

Mr. Corbyn: With regard to what the Secretary of State just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), when the Dail Eireann passes the appropriate legislation to allow the transfer of prisoners to the Republic of Ireland, will he expedite the transfer of Patrick Kelly on humanitarian grounds, if for no other reason, because of Mr. Kelly's serious illness?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hoped that I had indicated that those two gentlemen, and Mr. Kelly in particular, are not in my jurisdiction but in that of the Home Secretary. I do not doubt that he will take account of all appropriate circumstances.

I was describing the security situation today. I said that it is for decision whether the exceptional restrictions introduced in 1989 need to be continued in effect. In August this year, in a speech at Queen's university, I drew attention to the transformation of life in Northern Ireland occasioned by the ceasefires. I said of the ceasefires that they had

"transformed the situation into which prisoners are released. For the first time in 25 years, our young people are growing up in a situation in which they are not tempted with the call for arms. They should not face the temptation of involvement in such criminal activity. The need for the increased measures of 1989 has therefore dramatically reduced."

I continued:

"Provided there is not in the meantime the resumption of terrorist violence which would restore the need for stronger measures, I shall therefore seek early legislation which would enable those already serving sentences for terrorist offences to be released after they have served 50 per cent. of their sentences."

I believe that that undertaking can properly now be implemented. It is desirable that, in the light of the changed situation brought about by the ceasefires, the Government, in this field as in others, should not seem reluctant to respond in a positive manner consistent with their previous analyses and policy statements. But in so recommending such a response to the House, I want to emphasise the importance of understanding and respecting the feelings of the terrorists' victims, whether they are victims by reason of injury or bereavement, or in some cases both.

I tried to signal such emphasis when at Queen's I said:

"Time can never remove the hurt; for many it is as fresh and painful after 25 years as after one year . . . We must always feel with those who will always grieve."

Yet I find that, quite often, it is those very people who have most to forgive who show inspiring hope and vision for the future. I come to how the Bill will work. Clause 1, by its first two subsections, mitigates the effect of section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. That section limits to a maximum of one third the remission that may be granted to an offender convicted of a scheduled offence and sentenced to a fixed term of five years' or more imprisonment. I should explain that a scheduled offence is one contained in schedule 1 of the EPA, which has not been exempted from that Act's provisions by a certificate given by the Attorney-General.

The reason why the clause does not simply enlarge remission from one third to one half is that to do that would technically bring the sentence to an end at the halfway point, and thus prevent the release of the offender on licence--which we wish to provide for in subsection

Column 24

(3). I have already described the circumstances in which subsection (3) would permit the Secretary of State to revoke a person's licence. It is a necessary safeguard to cater for a situation in which a person under licence presents a risk to the safety of the public if he continues at liberty, or in which he appears likely to commit further offences. So, that safeguard is provided.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Since this power is quite unusual, as it is entirely subjective--it depends on the Secretary of State making a judgment that a person has become liable to commit further offences, which he was not liable to commit when he was released--is it assumed that it has arisen from a change in the political situation, a breakdown of talks, so that people become inclined to commit offences that they would not have done otherwise, or is it simply intended to meet a changed personal situation in which, perhaps, an individual joins a more extreme group?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The power is expressed in the words of the Home Secretary's directions some years ago to the Parole Board, to cover matters that it should take into account when determining whether to recall to prison somebody who has been released, having been sentenced to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Of course, the circumstances in each instance would have to be particular to the individual person on licence, and I would not wish to seek to circumscribe the appropriate circumstances.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the answer that he gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). But this is a different case, of course. The Secretary of State referred to the Parole Board, which is an arm's length body that exists to evaluate the evidence. In the Bill, all that exists is the Secretary of State, so it seems that the Secretary of State is concentrating all powers into his hands without any objective or distanced judgment on the available evidence.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Secretary of State must do the best that he can. He is responsible for the safety of everybody in Northern Ireland. A proper safeguard is provided in subsection (4), which provides that the Secretary of State must give reasons for the recall and must, of course, notify the offender that he is entitled to make representations about that recall and about those reasons. Above all, there is the overarching safeguard that the Secretary of State's decision would be subject to judicial review and that any capricious, unreasonable or misguided recall decision would be liable to be overturned by the court.

It is a matter of regret that we have, for so many years, not been able to have something equivalent to a Parole Board system in Northern Ireland. The House will know why, for the moment, that remains the case.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): The right hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention to the stringent powers given to the Secretary of State in relation to the withdrawing of licence for someone who appears likely to commit further offences. Is it not the case that those further offences, in those circumstances, would, in effect, be scheduled offences? Should not the word "scheduled" be included in the Bill before the word "offences"? Or is the Secretary of State suggesting, as the

Column 25

Bill suggests, that someone who is released on licence can be returned on the decision of the Secretary of State because of a civil offence that has no connection with terrorism or any scheduled offence?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Naturally enough, the Secretary of State will wish to use his discretion in a sensible manner. The Bill does not provide that the offence shall be a scheduled offence. Many people would be upset if the Bill limited the offence to that. Here is somebody who, under the Bill, is being licensed at the 50 per cent.--halfway--mark, having been convicted of serious scheduled offences. That person may be committing other offences or may be likely to commit other offences of a serious nature. Many people would be extremely upset if such a person was not liable to be recalled. I believe that that is a fair reflection of how the public would respond.

Mr. Mallon: I regret the equanimity with which the Secretary of State assumes to himself the power to take away someone's freedom because that person has committed a civil offence for which he or she can be committed to prison only by a court. In this instance, the Secretary of State is granting to himself or his successor the power to remove someone's freedom and to put that person in prison for a civil offence. Surely that should be put right in the Bill. If it is not, the Secretary of State will not help the cause of justice, but will grant to his office the power to put a person in gaol on foot of a civil offence.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means by a civil offence. We are talking about an offence. The Bill deals with criminal misconduct and is limited to criminal offences. I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman means. It is not a question of a debt or anything like that.

Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down): The phrase "civil offence" used by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is meaningless in law in this context. The hon. Gentleman means a criminal offence that is not a scheduled criminal offence--in other words, a terrorist offence. If someone, for example, had been charged and convicted of a scheduled offence of great personal violence, and subsequently became subject to remission at 50 per cent. of the sentence, but was subsequently involved in a crime of serious domestic violence, which was not a scheduled offence, for the protection of the public at large and to prevent the public from being exposed to any risk, the Secretary of State might well revoke that person's licence and bring him back into prison as a dangerous person per se, whether likely to commit scheduled offences or crimes of domestic violence.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman has the position absolutely right. In those circumstances, I would be able to face the disapproval of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who would criticise me for not leaving at licence and at liberty such a person, notwithstanding the fact that a serious offence of violence was likely to be committed by him. I doubt that that would be in the interests of the public.

Subsection (6) provides for mandatory court orders requiring a person to serve out the unexpired portion of a previous sentence when he has been convicted and

Column 26

sentenced for a subsequent scheduled offence. It does so in effect by applying section 15 of the emergency provisions Act to the period of release on licence.

Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the Bill on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint. Clause 3 permits the Secretary of State to make orders suspending or reviving the operation of clause 1. The House will readily understand that circumstances might change in such a way as to make that necessary. We trust that they will not.

Clause 4 provides for the affirmative resolution procedure for approving a draft order of suspension, with an exception to take account of circumstances in which suspension would be urgently required.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will the Secretary of State assure me that the order will be brought into effect as soon as possible after the Act receives Royal Assent? Secondly, in the event of it being necessary to suspend the provisions of clause 1 during a period in which the House is not sitting, will steps be taken to allow the House to debate the suspension of clause 1 without our having to wait for the expiry period of 40 days, after which the House may still not be sitting?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: If the Act receives the approval of the House, the Government intend to bring it into force as soon as practicable and before Christmas. I cannot give an undertaking on the hon. Gentleman's second question, as that would be a matter for others. He points to a scenario in which it might be necessary as a matter of urgency to suspend the working of the Act without prior affirmative resolution approval having been given.

Lastly, the House will wish to know the number of prisoners whom the Bill would affect. If the scheme were introduced in early December, more than 90 prisoners would be released before Christmas. A further 88 prisoners would be released on licence during 1996 whose release otherwise would not have been due until 1997 or 1998. By the end of the decade, about 340 prisoners out of the 471 to whom the Bill currently applies will have been released. The House will be reassured to know, however, that many of those who have been sentenced for the most heinous offences would under the provisions of the Bill remain in prison until at least the end of the first decade in the next century.

The Bill is not an amnesty. It makes no concession to people who falsely claim that those who are convicted of terrorist offences somehow become political prisoners. It makes no concession to terrorism at all. On the contrary, the Bill will enable the penal system in Northern Ireland to make a positive, but proportionate and prudent, response to the continuance of the ceasefires, and to the welcome reduction in risk that has been brought about over the past year. I commend it to the House.

3.57 pm

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): The Opposition approach the Bill in the spirit of bipartisanship characterised by our support for the peace process, particularly since the ceasefires. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) has asked me to apologise for her absence today, which is the result of other urgent Northern Ireland business. My hon. Friend

Column 27

has said repeatedly that peace and the search for a constitutional settlement are far too important to be undermined by party political point scoring.

On no occasion was the importance of that more clear than during the regrettably cancelled British-Irish summit, where there was a great danger that the respective Governments would be seen as agents for one or other of the protagonists, rather than as facilitators for peace and a constitutional settlement that would meet with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Just as the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the Irish Republic must stick together, so must the Opposition do all that they can to ensure that the pressure for an agreed solution is maintained on all parties.

We have urged this measure on the Government since June. The Secretary of State promised to introduce it in his speech during the summer, after we had urged the change. It is clear that both traditions and both sets of protagonists regard the prisoner issue as key. One element in that is the beneficial role that prisoner groups played in bringing about a ceasefire. We must also pay tribute to the constructive part played by some ex- prisoners in supporting the peace process.

As the Secretary of State said, there are other important elements to be borne in mind. First, any approach must never forget the victims of the violence--those whose nearest and dearest were slaughtered and maimed although they were no part of any dispute. Unfortunately, the appalling indifference to suffering still seems to be around, as seen in the barbaric torture of a 16-year-old girl last week as part of the deplorable pattern of punishment beatings. The crimes that were committed were heinous and the perpetrators must serve fair sentences. Even after the measure is passed, there will be large numbers of prisoners with considerable sentences to serve. Justice can be done only if the victims are not merely remembered but honoured by our passing legislation that respects their suffering.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): My hon. Friend refers to honouring the victims. Is he aware--if he is not, I am sure that he will be pleased to learn--that those of us who have been campaigning for a proper memorial in Birmingham for the 21 victims of the mass murder that took place on 21 November 1974 have been told that such a memorial is now to be erected? I hope that it will be put up on the 21st anniversary of the atrocities. I am sure that that shows that we shall always remember and honour those who died--the victims of terrorism, whether on the mainland or, as so often happened, in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Worthington: I hear with great respect what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that both civic and national authorities will be listening to him.

The legislation must be fair and principled. It seems to us that the measure is so, although there are flaws, as I shall point out. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) 1991, which the Bill supersedes, were introduced under conditions of emergency. They imposed more stringent conditions of imprisonment. The Government now propose, and we agree, that under

Column 28

conditions of peace it is appropriate to impose on those prisoners exactly the same conditions of imprisonment as if they had committed their crimes in Great Britain.

I recognise that exact equality is not possible, particularly because Northern Ireland does not have a parole system, but an imperfect peace is far superior to the alternative and it seems to us that the measure should be supported. However, the precedents for hurried legislation are not good. We can all think of examples, including contemporary examples, of legislation passed in haste and repented at leisure.

We have been able to consider the Bill only since late on Thursday. We shall make proposals for change which we hope that the Government will consider constructively. The Government have welcomed and, I hope, valued our bipartisan approach, but I remind the Government that bipartisan means joint and shared. It does not mean that the Secretary of State decides and we follow. The points that we are putting today are constructive and we put them in the knowledge that a Labour Government are likely to enact the legislation.

I shall make other proposals and comments which might not be appropriate as amendments to the Bill, but on which the response of the Secretary of State will be important. For instance, I understand that in the recent Pepper v. Hart judgment, seven Law Lords ruled that where there was doubt about the law--the Bill will result in many such doubts--the statements of Ministers about the intentions of the legislation acquire the force of law. Therefore, I hope that, on occasion, the Secretary of State will intervene to clarify his intentions.

I now arrive at one such point that is important in terms of the Government's bona fides. This is retrospective legislation, in that it alters the conditions under which prisoners were sentenced. It ameliorates the conditions of remission. If legislation can be passed to improve remission retrospectively, it follows that it can be passed to worsen it.

The legislation is going in the opposite direction to recent statements by the Home Secretary. For example, at the Tory party conference, he said that he would introduce a crime Bill before the next election which would give effect to his statements--for example, that

"five years should mean five years . . . No more automatic early release . . . And no more half time sentences for full time crimes . . . Persons serving 12 months . . . or more will be eligible for a small period of earned early release."

For the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland, it is important that the Secretary of State gives us the firmest of assurances that nothing that the Home Secretary is preparing will have any impact on this Bill or any of the prisoners affected by its proposals. As has been pointed out, it should be recognised that, written into the Bill, are considerable reserve powers for the Secretary of State. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give us some information on a closely related matter. The Bill applies only to determinate sentences, and not to life sentences. What impact do the Government envisage it having on the length of time served by lifers? The Secretary of State will be aware of the judgment of Mr. Justice Dyson that the Home Secretary's policy of delaying parole applications for five lifers, who had reached the end of the tariff part of their sentences, was "unreasonable and unlawful." The judge also described the policy as "manifestly unjust". Has a decision been made on whether

Column 29

to appeal against that judgment? It would be strange if the Government were introducing this measure at the same time as appealing against Mr. Justice Dyson's decision.

Mr. Madden: As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is implying that the matter has nothing to do with him, I must inform my hon. Friend and the House that the Home Secretary had until one day last week to submit notice of an appeal on the matter to which he referred. No such notice has been submitted and we can only assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not intend to appeal against that judgment.

Mr. Worthington: I hear what my hon. Friend says but, with all due respect, it would be good for Ministers to say so. I heard the Minister of State saying that it was nothing to do with this Bill, but, as we all know, the measure is part of a jigsaw--a constellation of factors affecting prisoners--and we want to know how it fits together.

On the specifics of the Bill, some of my remarks are on matters that would normally be mentioned in Committee, but I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that, due to the exceptional circumstances of this Bill, it will help the business of the House if I make those points now so that the Government can consider them and respond in Committee--hopefully, by accepting our proposals and using their drafting skills to improve the legislation. Hope springs eternal. After all, I expect that the Government hope for the minimum of amendment in the other place so as to avoid any complication in reporting back to this House, and I hope that they will be helpful in this matter.

Clause 1(2) states:

"A person to whom this section applies shall be released on licence".

The Government's assurances on that are very important. Do the Government intend to impose any conditions on the licence beyond a general expectation that the person should be of good behaviour? For example, will there be any restrictions on freedom of movement or freedom of association?

At the moment, the Bill gives the Government the freedom to create whatever conditions they want. Given the sensitivities of the situation and the considerable powers in clause 1(3), it does not seem to be necessary to write in specific conditions of licence, but an assurance from the Government would be welcome.

Clause 1(3) is probably the most contentious in the Bill and I hope that the Government will be able to move some way to improve it. We fear that, if they cannot, it will cause problems. Especially difficult is the expression

"The Secretary of State may revoke a person's licence . . . if it appears to him that"

a person

"is likely to commit further offences".

The matter has already been mentioned in interventions. What sort of offences would be involved? Should there not be some sort of quality--or gravity--control? Surely the Secretary of State should not be given such carte blanche powers when he thinks that someone "is likely to commit further offences".

Is the Secretary of State willing to consider writing in scheduled offences or some other such seriousness threshold to give reassurance on the matter?

Column 30

However, the worst part of clause 1 is the fact that the Secretary of State is policeman, prosecuting counsel, judge, jury and Court of Appeal. Will the Government give some undertaking to improve the clause? Let me suggest three improvements.

First, logically should not clause 1(4)(a) and 1(4)(b) be reversed? At present, a person

"may make representations in writing to the Secretary of State about the revocation"

and then

"shall as soon as is practicable be informed of the reasons for the revocation".

Remember, that is after the licence has been revoked. Surely the first thing to do is to tell the person why the licence is being revoked and then tell him of his right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

If we reverse clause 1(4)(a) and (b), is there not also a case for amending clause 1 to say that the person should not be informed "as soon as is practicable"

but should be informed immediately and in writing of the reasons for the revocation? At present, there could be a dispute about what a person was told when he was informed verbally. If it is right that a person should be able to make representations in writing to the Secretary of State about the appeal, surely it is right that the Secretary of State should tell that person in writing why the licence is being revoked.

Secondly, there has to be some judicial or quasi-judicial intervention in the matter to evaluate the evidence. I should welcome a response on the matter from the Minister so that we can decide what to do in Committee. What thought have the Government given to that? If we were in Government, we would not want to assume all the powers in clause 1 because we would in so doing bring condemnation upon ourselves. There is certainly a case for creating an intermediary body. The Secretary of State may wish to respond as to the form of an intermediary body to give assurance, in a highly dangerous political situation, that there will be fair dealing. That is especially important because of the Government's sources of information.

When a prisoner in Great Britain breaches parole, it may come to light either through the police bringing charges via the courts or through the actions of the probation service. In Northern Ireland, there is no parole and the probation service has not been involved with supervising paramilitaries. The only sources of information for the Secretary of State are the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the security services, which do not have to bring a case to court. Mistakes can be made and the Secretary of State will be aware of the hostility of sections of the nationalist community to the RUC. I make those points not out of sympathy--quite the reverse--for terrorist activity, but out of knowledge of how damaging to community peace it would be if mistakes were made on the basis of this procedure. It is crucial that the procedure is seen as fair. The clause makes no reference to legal assistance being made available to the person whose licence is being revoked. Will the Secretary of State comment on that?

Next Section

Home Page