MISS ANNA MENDLESON (PAROLE) (Hansard, 14 February 1977)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John)
First, may I express the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is unavoidably unable to be present to answer this Question as he is on an official visit from which he could not return in time.
The House will recall that Miss Mendleson was one of the defendants in the "Angry Brigade" case following a series of bomb attacks in this country during 1970 and 1971. She was convicted and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. Her earliest date of release—taking account of the time she spent on remand—would 33 have been in July 1978 if she were granted the normal one-third of sentence as remission. In fact, she was released on parole in November 1976 after she had served half of her sentence.
Persons are eligible for release on licence on parole after they have served one-third of their sentence. The case is first considered by a local review committee and thereafter the more difficult cases are considered by the Parole Board. The Board takes into account many criteria, and these were set out in a statement made by the previous Home Secretary to the House on 4th August 1975. One of the most important factors is to ensure the protection of the public. There are, however, many other considerations, including the attitude of the prisoners after a period in prison, their response to authority and their home and employment prospects if released.
The recommendation of the Parole Board that Miss Mendleson be released was referred to the Home Secretary, who took the view that, in the interests of the individual and society as a whole, release was, in fact, justified at that time, namely after she had served half of her sentence. Miss Mendleson remains on licence until July 1978 under the aegis of the Probation Service.

§ Mr. Whitelaw
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the public and the police, who are facing and fighting terrorism, deserve the whole-hearted support of the the Government and of the House? In these circumstances, is not the protection of the public the first consideration and are the House and the country not entitled to some very compelling reasons indeed why Miss Mendleson has been released so early in her sentence?

§ Mr. John
I said in my reply that the protection of the public was a first consideration of the Home Secretary, but the decision is his. The Parole Board made the recommendation and it is for my right hon. Friend, having considered that recommendation, to decide whether the request for release should be acceded to. In this case, after going into it very carefully, he felt that it was right to do so.
Along with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), my right hon. Friend has enough experience of combating terrorism not to be unduly soft or to be ignorant of the cones- 34 quences of terrorism. Nevertheless, in the interests of the individual and of society as a whole, he felt that it was right to take the decision which he took in this case.

§ Mr. Orbach
As the constituency Member for Miss Mendleson and her family, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend on his reply and to say to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) that he was a member of—

§ Mr. Tebbit
The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be asking a question.

§ Mr. Orbach
I am sure that Mr. Speaker will interrupt me if I am out of order.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must address his question to the Minister.

§ Mr. Orbach
Is the Minister aware that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border was a member of the Government which released Leila Khaled, who was a terrorist arrested on a plane and handed over to the Metropolitan Police? She was released by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was Home Secretary. In those circumstances, he is the last person in the world to raise this issue.

§ Mr. Whitelaw
I held many other posts, but I was not Home Secretary.

§ Mr. Orbach
I thought that this was not a laughing matter. My hon. Friend will be aware that Miss Mendleson was visited by her hon. Member in Holloway Gaol on a number of occasions. I found that she was teaching illiterates there to read and write. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] You are a silly lot of fellows.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that his remarks are addressed to me, and I do not like what he just said.

§ Mr. Orbach
The last person in the world on whom I would wish to cast aspersions is a fellow countryman such as yourself, Mr. Speaker.
Is my hon. Friend aware that this young lady has been teaching art to prostitutes, dope smugglers and pickpockets in prison and that her request for parole was supported by a warden, 35 the welfare officer, her tutor, the art teacher and myself? Is it not right that she should be reunited with her family as she has expressed regret for what she has done and, now that she has served half her sentence, she will make a very good contribution to society?

§ Mr. John
The effect of a term of imprisonment upon an individual is one of the things which the Home Secretary has to bear in mind when giving consideration to Parole Board recommendations. I say to all hon. Members that any Home Secretary bears a very heavy responsibility and has a very difficult task in considering these matters. I notice that Lord Carr of Hadley paid a great tribute to the Parole Board and the care which it takes before making such recommendations.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
Can the Minister say what effect he thinks this decision will have on two groups of people? First, are the IRA not likely to conclude that the release of a person after only four years of a sentence for an extremely serious terrorist offence is an encouragement to others to do the same? Will not their morale be increased?
Secondly, what effect does the hon. Gentleman think that this will have on the British police, who are risking their lives on our behalf? Will he take it from me that within the police service there is revulsion and anger at what the Home Secretary has done?

§ Mr. John
I hope that nothing that I have said will be taken in any way as condoning or encouraging the IRA. We have frequently condemned their crimes. In connection with those members of the IRA who were convicted last week, the hon. Gentleman will know that the procedures in life cases are different from those where determinate sentences are made, where the law allows for consideration of parole after one third of the sentence has been served.
I pay tribute to the work of the police both in this case and in others. The police know that my right hon. Friend must consider the effect on the individual of continued imprisonment and the effect on society of releasing that person. Only when there is no real likelihood of a repetition of the offence is parole allowed.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is a Private Notice Question. I shall allow only two more questions, unless the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) wishes to intervene again.

§ Mr. Beith
Is the Minister aware of the deep public concern that terrorist prison sentences may not in fact amount to what they appear to amount to? Does he recognise that since other considerable sentences have been passed lately people fear that these, too, will last for only a short time? Since the House has taken a clear decision that the death penalty is not to be used, is it not important that we establish a system in which the public can have confidence?

§ Mr. John
The public is fully aware of the parole conditions because they have been publicly announced. There is no secrecy about this matter. As I have already explained, sentences to life imprisonment which carry a recommendation for a minimum term to be served are completely different. Completely different criteria are involved and the views of the judiciary are sought.

§ Mr. Aitken
Does the Minister accept that this release may be setting a disturbing and, indeed, dangerous precedent? Is he aware that those who take part in terrorist bomb attacks do, in the view of the vast majority of the public, deserve to serve deterrent sentences? Is he aware that if there is unexplained commutation of sentences there is bound to be a loss of morale among the police and security services and a loss of confidence among the public?

§ Mr. John
No precedent has been set. This prisoner was considered for parole in exactly the same way as other prisoners with determinate sentences. Obviously my right hon. Friend looked very carefully at the criteria and he considered the case with the utmost care before he assented to the recommendation. The public is entitled to be aware that parole is available for prisoners who are serving determinate sentences. My right hon. Friend has said many times that he is not resiling from the attack on terrorism. I ask the House to bear in mind that the effect on the individual is one of the ways of safeguarding the public and society.

§ Mr. Whitelaw
Is the Minister aware that of course we in the House—and some people outside—appreciate the position of parole and of the Parole Board and are aware of the difficult decisions that the Home Secretary has to make in the vast majority of normal cases? Do the questions in the House today not show that terrorist offences are regarded as being in a different category by hon. Members and by the country? Does he agree that such offences should, therefore, be looked at differently? From his answers this afternoon and from what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others have said, it appears that the Minister's answers are unsatisfactory. Does he accept that the protection of the public must be the first criterion of the Government? Will he give an assurance that in terrorist cases the protection of the public and the morale of the police and of those who are fighting terrorism on our behalf to protect us will be the first criteria in any such decision?

§ Mr. John
I have already indicated that the first consideration of any Home Secretary is the safety of the public and society. Of course it is important to build up the morale of the various forces in their fight against terrorism. But the chief protection of society involves a humane method of releasing people when they are thought fit and when it is believed that they will re-enter society and play a useful part in that society.

§ Mr. Lawrence
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have listened carefully to the exchanges, and I must tell the House that I cannot give precedence over the ordinary business of the House to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).

§ Mr. Gow
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), without advancing any reasons to you, asked leave, as I understood him, to move the Adjournment of the House, arising out of the statement by the Minister of State. I rise to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether 38 it would be in order for another hon. Member to advance reasons to you as to why he thinks that there should be an emergency debate on this subject, and, if so, whether you will permit me to do so.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think not. The hon. Member for Burton made his application, and I would be setting a dangerous precedent if I allowed someone else to take it up. Then there would be a third, and then there would be a fourth. I think that it would be unwise, and I think that I can rule that it would not be in order.