Northern Ireland (Parole) (Hansard, 2 February 1981)

§ Mr. Robert J. Bradford (Belfast, South)

I should like to take this opportunity of sharing some concern which I have about the Government's decision regarding parole and release on licence and the exercising of the Royal Prerogative in respect of prisoners in Northern Ireland. I have given the Minister a note of some of the issues which I hope to raise in tonight's debate. I know that if he does not have time to touch on all the answers he will let me have some information in writing, as is customary. However, I hope to give the Minister as much time as possible to reply to what I and, I think, my colleagues regard as a very important matter.

There are four facets to this problem. I begin by referring specifically to the case of Mr. John McMullan, who is a prisoner in the Maze prison in Northern Ireland. I wrote to the Minister on 4 December about Mr. McMullan's behaviour. Whilst on parole, he went to Casement Park and spoke at an H-block rally. As I understand the details, he spent most of his time not in visiting his father, which was the original purpose of his parole, but among the dirty protesters at Casement Park. I wonder how much time he spent with his father at the Royal Victoria hospital. During the four-hour parole he spent a considerable part of the time in pursuits which were not part of the purpose of parole.

When I wrote to the Minister, he kindly replied in detail, but some of the detail concerned me very much. In his reply of 12 January, he said: The prisoner returned to the prison on time. I note what you say about supervision in this type of case but I am afraid that it is often not possible in present circumstances to provide prison officer escorts where prisoners are granted short compassionate leave. The prisoner involved in the present case is already losing remission on a day for day basis as a result of the disciplinary offences associated with the dirty protest, and I do not think it would be appropriate to bring separate disciplinary proceedings against him because of what happened on the 30th November. A number of questions arise. First, the Minister will remember that the Secretary of State said that the withdrawn remission in respect of the dirty protesters would be restored if there were good behaviour subsequent to the arrangement which was worked out in December. If remission is restored in respect of the dirty protest, no disciplinary action will be taken against this gentleman for breaking his parole whilst purportedly out to visit his father. He will get away scot-free if all his remission is restored, as the Secretary of State promised it would be in late December.

Secondly, can the Minister give examples of prisoners whose loss of remission for separate incidents has run concurrently? That is happening in this case. McMullan has already lost remission because of his dirty protest. He will not be disciplined for having broken his parole obligations and promises. From the Minister's reply, it might be argued that the remission is running concurrently. What examples or precedents does the hon. Gentleman have of prisoners who have lost remission for separate incidents and for whom those losses of remission have run concurrently?

Thirdly, does not the Minister accept that any breach of law—even prison law—must be punished and that there should be no circumstances in which a breach of prison 122 law should be unpunished? That is precisely what will happen if no further deduction is made from this man's remission.

I turn to a slightly different aspect. The Minister said that staffing problems and difficulties at the prison had not afforded him an opportunity to send escorts with prisoners. Terrorists must be made to accept the full consequences of their actions. The full consequences may well involve no parole, or the refusal of parole requested on compassionate grounds if that parole is likely to take them into unacceptable areas of Belfast where prison officers cannot go. Will the Minister come hown deavily on the side of judgment and justice and refuse to turn a blind eye to the breaking of the law?

If prisoners whose relatives live in difficult areas apply for parole on compassionate grounds, the authorities should say "I am sorry, you have got to accept the full consequences of your actions. As we have not got enough prison staff, you cannot go home." There must not be a repetition of this appalling incident. A man was released to go to hospital to visit a relative but took part in an anti-Government and anti-State demonstration. He ventilated some of his most vitriolic comments against the Government and against Northern Ireland.

My second reason for concern is the freedom on licence that exists in respect of Marian Price—one of the notorious Price sisters—and Pauline McLaughlin. Other hon. Members have raised this issue. The Secretary of State's attention was drawn to the growing concern about their release in Northern Ireland. On 25 September 1980, the right hon. Gentleman referred to Marian Price's release and wrote: This advice was that if she remained in custody she would, within days, have been in imminent danger of her life. He went on to say that she could be recalled to resume the remainder of her sentence but that as she was in imminent danger of death she had been allowed to go home.

Marian Price is probably far healthier than I am tonight. She is touring the length and breadth of Ulster. Indeed, she also goes outside the jurisdiction. That is another breach of the law. I believe—perhaps the Minister will confirm it—that at times she visits her sister in Armagh prison. That is also a breach of the law. Yet there has been no attempt to recall her and force her to resume her sentence.

I should like to know two things. Was the medical decision taken in the full knowledge that she would regain her full health and strength if released from prison, or was the decision possibly taken because it was assumed that she would remain at a certain debilitated level if she were released from prison? If it was the former, the Secretary of State and the Minister must address themselves to what is a very serious matter indeed—that is, that someone was released in the full knowledge that, when released, she would somehow recover her full health and strength and lead an absolutely normal life, having perpetrated some of the most desperate crimes, not on the other side of the water but on this side of the water, against Her Majesty's Government and the people of the realm.

If the decision was taken to release her, supposedly on medical grounds, knowing that she would regain full health, I believe that that is a total negation of duty and of responsibility. If it was assumed that she would remain at a certain level of debilitation, I must tell the House that she has made a remarkable recovery and is now fit and well enough to resume the rest of her sentence.

123 I should like to know what action the Minister intends to take in respect of Marian Price.

The other rather notorious young lady is called Pauline McLaughlin. She apparently suffered from anorexia nervosa, yet she, too, has made a remarkable recovery. There is no question of her dying within a few days. So, again, I ask the Minister to look at the possibility of returning Pauline McLaughlin to pursue the rest of her sentence.

What occasioned this return to health? Did the young lady simply cease her slimming activities? How do we explain her recovery of full health and strength? If the Minister does not accept that Pauline McLauglin simply used that tactic to get out of prison—she is one of the most dangerous young women in Northern Ireland today—I am afraid that he is being fooled, and rather expensively fooled in terms of life and limb in the Province.

Thirdly, I turn to a written answer given by the Secretary of State, again in respect of prisoners. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked how many female prisoners have been released in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and the current year on compassionate and/or medical grounds; of these, in each case how many were suffering from anorexia nervosa as their principal or only complaint; and, of these, how many subsequently died as a result of that condition."—[Official Report, 22 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 238.] We discovered that some seven females had been released over the past five years—one in 1976, four in 1978, one in 1980 and one in 1981. Two of them, apparently, suffered from anorexia nervosa, but, as I understand it, not one of them has died. How many of those prisoners were Republicans, and how many of them claimed to be Loyalists? It appears that those who enjoy this incredible compassion exercised by the Secretary of State are all Republican prisoners. Interestingly enough, some of them were released when the H-block protest was at its height, when there was a frenzied grappling for some common ground at a tense time in the Province.

I ask what I believe is a fundamental question. What awful conditions prevail within the prison that would cause a recurrence of the illness that would bring these girls to the point of death again? They have not died. McLaughlin is in good health and strength, as is Marian Price. What is it about the Armagh prison that robs them of their vitality and lifeblood and brings them to the point of death? The answer is "Nothing at all." The answer is that these girls should be brought back to finish their sentences. They are murderers, they are rebels and they are destroyers of the worst sort. However, we see them now swarming around Northern Ireland as free as birds.

My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry asked the Secretary of State to list the medical conditions that he regards as acceptable grounds for releasing a prisoner from any of Her Majesty's prisons in Northen Ireland before completion of sentence. The reply was as follows: (i) where it is reasonably clear that a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and that death is likely to occur soon". There was no terminal illness afflicting Price and McLaughlin. The reply continued: (ii) where a prisoner is bedridden and totally incapacitated. There was no problem in those respects with Price or McLaughlin. The third condition is interesting. It reads as follows: 124 where it appears that further imprisonment will of itself endanger life or reason, or shorten life expectancy."—[Official Report, 22 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 238.] If that is to be regarded as a serous reason for affording freedom to murderers and butchers, I think that we are in a more serious situation than I envisaged or imagined.

If the third condition is one of the consequences of murdering and bombing, so be it. If life expectancy is shortened because they are confined and limited because of terrible deeds of bombing and murder, so be it. To use that as an excuse to release some of the most dangerous people in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom is an appalling indictment of the Government and of the Northern Ireland Office.

If the Minister uses the third condition as a yardstick he is inviting a mass resort to anorexia nervosa, and we shall have some of the fittest and slimmest prisoners in the world. Suddenly it will become apparent to a number of obscurantist civil servants or medics that the life expectancy of these people is rather shorter than it was when they entered the prison or that their reason may be endangered because of the lack of flab and fat.

It is too silly for words. Yet the reality in Northern Ireland is that Marian Price is out to connive and to co-operate with men and women who tonight are planning the murder of soldiers and policemen and ordinary good decent citizens, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, in the Province. Pauline McLaughlin has returned to her old pursuit of discovering where she can devastate most savagely in the Province. This, as I say, is happening while the Minister allows these two people to romp around and he has in his hand the ability to recover them and make them resume their sentences.

There is no such licence—if I may use the word—for Bobby Williamson or Gusty Spence. I am no great advocate of Gusty Spence, but Bobby Williamson is a man who has now served approximately 14 years' imprisonment, and for the past six years, under various Administrations, I have consistently written asking that his release date should be set. I have not asked that he should be pardoned or freed. I have asked only that his release date be set so that he will become eligible for parole. All these Republicans are out to do their dirty work and their bestial deeds, but there is no such treatment for Bobby Williamson or for Gusty Spence.

I want to know why, and I ask what reassurance the Minister can give the people of Northern Ireland that the administration of the prisons is in the hands of men who care for the Province and know what they are doing.

§ The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison)

I shall try to cover the ground that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) touched on in his speech, but he has no doubt noted the progress of the clock, and if I do not cover everything in time, I shall follow his suggestion and write to him.

Perhaps I may start with one general point before turning to the particular cases which the hon. Gentleman has specified. It is no easy matter in running prisons to find the right balance between, on the one hand, the needs of security and the protection of the public and, on the other, considerations of compassion and humanity towards individual prisoners of whatever sectarian background, many of whom in Northern Ireland are younger and serving much longer sentences than the general run of 125 prisoners in most other countries. We try to strike a reasonable balance, but I think that it would be unfair to expect everybody to agree with all the decisions which we take either on general matters of prison treatment or in regard to particular cases. This is a controversial and difficult area.

As regards the grant of compassionate leave to sentenced prisoners, the practice in Northern Ireland has traditionally been a good deal more generous than that in Great Britain. That was true under the Northern Ireland Government and has remained so under successive Administrations under direct rule. I recognise that there are some who will argue that we are over-generous in this respect, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman is one such, but at least the figures demonstrate that there is remarkably little abuse of the privilege, although occasionally it does occur.

In some 700 cases where compassionate leave—which lasts for up to 24 hours—has been granted during the past five years, only 13 prisoners have failed to return within the specified time limit. Of these, eight subsequently returned of their own accord, and the other five were arrested by the police.

The hon. Gentleman raised the case of the prisoner on the dirty protest who, having been granted a short period of compassionate home leave to visit his father, who was confirmed as being seriously ill in the Royal Victoria hospital, made a brief address to an H-block rally in Casement Park before returning on time to the prison. I do not know whether he was coerced into attending the meeting, but, as I have already told the hon. Gentleman in correspondence, we took a serious view of this abuse of compassionate leave.

There are those who consider that compassionate leave should not be granted at all to prisoners taking part in this uniquely offensive form of protest. However, last year, following the publication of the report of the European Commission on Human Rights, which, although it found entirely in the Government's favour on the particular submission, made some criticisms of our handling of the long-drawn-out protest, we decided that it would be right to consider the eligibility of protesting prisoners for compassionate leave on the same basis as other sentenced prisoners. It has so far been granted only to a handful of protesters, and I am not aware of any other cases of abuse.

In the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the governor cautioned the prisoner about his misuse of parole granted for compassionate reasons, but did not think it appropriate or necessary to charge him formally with any disciplinary offence. It was an abuse of a privilege, not of a prison rule, and strictly speaking there is no punishment for abuse of a privilege.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that these prisoners are already losing remission. Some have already lost all of it, and will serve their sentences in full. Generally they lose it on a day-for-day basis. I agree with the governor that a disciplinary charge would have served no meaningful or useful purpose on this occasion.

As to the supervision of the prisoner whilst on parole, it is frequently not possible, for reasons that I think the hon. Gentleman is well aware of, to send prisoners to funerals or to visit dying relatives with prison officer escorts. That is an unfortunate fact of life, and the difficulty does not apply only on one side of the community. However, since this particular occurrence we have taken steps to ensure that every protesting prisoner 126 who is released on parole is warned in unmistakable terms that if he abuses his parole this may well prejudice any further applications that he or any other protesting prisoner seeking compassionate home leave may make.

The hon. Gentleman went on to comment on the Secretary of State's decisions to release the prisoners Marian Price and Pauline McLaughlin on medical grounds, and to compare our attitude in these cases with that in regard to certain Loyalist prisoners. I reject categorically the suggestion that we approach cases with different degrees of sympathy according to the religious or paramilitary affiliations of the prisoners concerned. Medical and compassionate cases are all looked at in the light of the facts and are decided by reference to exactly the same criteria. These criteria were set out recently in my reply of 22 January to the written question by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

In the case of both those young women, the decisions were taken after full and anxious consideration of all the available information, including medical reports both by the prison medical officer and by outside consultants called in to advise, and information as to their offences and background and their behaviour and attitude in prison. I cannot go into medical detail, but I can assure the House that there was full consultation with all the interests involved, including the chief constable, before the decision was taken to release the prisoners on licence.

It would not be proper for me to give details of the medical conditions of these prisoners which led to their release, but I should like to make one or two points on this aspect. We were entirely satisfied that the illnesses were genuine and grave, and that further imprisonment would have led to death. As to stories that the prisoners made a suspiciously rapid recovery after their release. I can say only two things. First, I counsel caution in assuming the complete accuracy of statements of the kind that have been circulating. Secondly, we recognised when the prisoners were released on licence that over a period they might subsequently recover to a greater or lesser degree. But this does not, in my view, demonstrate that our decision was wrong.

I should add that both prisoners, as is normal in cases of this kind, were released on licence. They can be recalled to prison to resume their sentences if at any time this course appears necessary in the public interest. That is a serious step to take, and in our view it would not be right to recall them on the basis of reports as to their alleged medical condition now. But if the Secretary of State were satisfied that recall was necessary to protect the public, he would not shrink from exercising his power to revoke the licence.

In general, prisoners released on medical grounds are discharged because they are dying or are in the terminal stages of an illness. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to those two categories, as reported in the reply of 22 January. Where, as in the case of these two prisoners, they are released because they are seriously ill and the doctors consider that further imprisonment is likely to result in death, I do not think it would be just or sensible to recall them to prison if they make a limited, or even a full, recovery some time after their release, not least because in the case of anorexia nervosa, the condition underlying these two cases, it would simply precipitate a recurrence, and there would be a circular movement from which there would be no profit for any side. I assure the hon. 127 Gentleman that anorexia nervosa is a well-established condition in the world of clinical conditions, and consultants and medical advisers are perfectly competent to—