HC Deb 23 October 1984 vol 65 cc664-70

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

11.35 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The House will think it not a little strange that I should plead the case for some new initiatives that would lead to young offenders detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure being more quickly rehabilitated and systematically absorbed back into the community. I know that I have consistently pressed for sterner sentences for hardened and mature terrorists. I admit that I continue to advocate that those who show no evidence of remorse or dissociation from paramilitary involvement while serving sentences for terrorism should remain in custody at the completion of their sentence. Yet I do not believe that this stance will be inconsistent with my argument on behalf of a young offender who is detained at the Secretary of State's pleasure.

Let me set the scene for the House. The early 1970s saw increasing terrorist activity and a rise in the murder rate. It was the prorogation of the Stormont Parliament in 1972 and the sudden and unexpected removal of that forum for democratically elected politicians which saw the inevitable increase in the influence of the godfathers of violence, who so quickly filled the void that was created. In every street within every village there arose self-appointed groups with self-appointed leaders who preyed on the young and vulnerable and sent those impressionable boys out with guns to do their dirty work. It is with those boys, who were under 18 years of age, that I wish to concern the House.

There were three convictions — of three youth offenders—in 1974; the number rose to 16 in 1975. There were 12 in 1976 and 17 in 1977. Boys from both sides of the community who were convicted during those years have now served between seven and 10 years' imprisonment, the equivalent of 14 to 20 years for an adult, who will receive automatically 50 per cent. remission. We have two standards of justice. There is an indeterminate sentence for children and a determinate sentence for adults. I note that the Under-Secretary of State shakes his head, and before he rises to say that life sentence for murder is also indeterminate, let me say that I accept that. However, it is not unusual for those involved in terrorist killings who are not proven prime movers in the crime, or who are involved without pulling the trigger, to be given determinate sentences. That cannot be the case with the Secretary of State's prisoners.

If an adult plans a murder, another adult provides the weapon, two adults carry out the killing, a boy acts as lookout and they are all caught, it is most likely that the planner will remain silent, plead not guilty and walk away free. The planner is always the hardest to convict. The quartermaster will be charged with possession and will be sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, which means that he will be free in about four years. Of the two killers, the one who pulled the trigger will get life and his adult companion, no doubt claiming that he did not realise that a killing was to take place or that he was under duress, will perhaps receive a 12 or 14-year sentence and will be out in six or seven years. The boy who acted as lookout, as an SOSP, will be likely to serve an indefinite custodial sentence as the law stands.

That is one case that I know about. Let me recount another case which was highlighted recently on the Ulster television programme "Counterpoint", which vividly portrays the tragedy of children in the mid-1970s.

Billy McCurrie was 12 years old when his father was killed by an IRA sniper. Heartbreak had provided a new recruit for the godfathers, and Billy joined the UVF where, at the age of 16, he was ordered, with another man, to kill a member of the IRA. In February 1976 the victim, who had been pointed out to Billy by an older man, died in a hail of bullets. But the victim was not an IRA man; he was a Protestant whom the UVF godfathers had decided to eliminate for their own selfish and evil purposes. Poor, tragic, misguided Billy had been exploited and now serves an indeterminate sentence.

There are about 60 young Billy McCurries in Ulster's prisons today. The Minister does not need to tell us in his reply that their crimes were horrid and brutal. I have spoken to some of these boys, now young men between 24 and 28 years of age. How they wish that they could begin all over again with the added wisdom that the last seven to 10 years have brought. How many revile themselves for their naivety and folly. Full of remorse, they languish without hope in prison, while the unrepentant adults who led them into violence walk our streets seeking further victims. Our inadequate, impotent law can do nothing about it. Where is justice to be found?

On 24 May this year I asked the Minister if he would re-examine the review procedure for those young people and make a special case on their behalf. I gave him my assurance that I meant all SOSPs. He disappointed me by answering: I am satisfied that we have the right machinery for keeping such cases under review. Youth at the time of the crime is one of the factors that I take into account when advising my right hon. Friend about release dates."—[Official Report, 24 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 1232.] But is not that review procedure a mere 10 or 15 minutes in the governor's office when the governor has time? Do not most of the young men decline to comply with the ritual because they believe it is a meaningless mockery of their hopelessness?

Has not the Secretary of State in the past written to despairing parents — parents who often share their children's guilt and feel that the latter's crime is their own failure—and has he not blamed the compound system for the inadequate review procedure, stating, in a letter to a parent: That is not to say, of course, that the retention of special category status by itself counts against any prisoner when his case is being reviewed, but at the same time it must be accepted that it is virtually impossible to obtain meaningful reports on prisoners in these compounds because they are for the most part outside the day-to-day contact, discipline and observation found in the normal prison set-up."? It was not the young prisoners who created the special category system and the compounds. It was the Government, and it is up to the Government to find a way to deal with the problems created by a decision which Government made in days gone by.

Am I not right to believe that these young men have made an effort to educate themselves, and that educationists regularly enter the compounds to assist them with their studies? We all know that there is supervision in many forms. How can the Northern Ireland Office appear to dismiss these victims—yes, victims—of their own and society's creation in such a thoughtless and callous manner?

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable scepticism by the parents of young offenders to whom letters are sent by the Minister or the Secretary of State? Those letters often reflect, because of their standard form, the influence of Northern Ireland Office officials who advise the Minister or the Secretary of State. An uncaring attitude is coming through in those letters. Does my hon. Friend further agree that, when we as public representatives look seriously at a case relating to one of those young offenders held at the Secretary of State's pleasure, who has completed a lengthy sentence to date, and we seek advice from the local RUC superintendent, who does not find grounds to oppose the release of such a prisoner, the Minister and the Secretary of State should give more credence to our representations?

Mr. Maginnis

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, in which he made a valid point. I have evidence. Consider the despair of a parent who received from a Minister on 1 December 1981 a letter that stated: I can assure you that your representations on your son's behalf will not be overlooked in future reviews. Another letter in April 1982 stated: but would assure you that your son's case will continue to be reviewed. Another letter dated 18 May 1983 stated: but would assure you that your son's case will continue to be reviewed. Yet again in February 1984 a letter stated: Nevertheless I can assure you that your son's case will continue to be reviewed. How can the Northern Ireland Office continue to send out that sort of callous, repetitive and meaningless mishmash to parents who are growing old, wondering whether the child who was taken from them by the violence of the 1970s will ever cross their threshold and sit at their table again in their lifetime?

Some broken-hearted parents are already gone. Others believe that they, too, will fail to live to see that day. In this specific matter, can we blame parents who are gradually losing hope for such despair? Can one blame my colleagues and me as we strive to build a better society in Ulster if we feel that our hands are tied? Can one understand how those young people, as they still have no release date to look forward to, must inevitably become institutionalised and, finally, unfit to take their place in society?

I began my speech with an outline of the role of the godfathers in the mid-1970s. Let us remember that the same godfathers are still a virulent cancer in our society, wasting it and draining its very lifeblood. They feed and flourish on grievances, both real and imaginary, but the family is still the most influential unit in Ulster. It can submit to paramilitary pressure if it feels aggrieved and hopeless, or it can feel that society does care and become the bastion against such evil. If we continue to set our faces against the SOSPs as we have appeared to do, the godfathers will exploit them, parading their families on our streets at every opportunity.

The next phase is more recruits, and the wheel will have turned full circle. I have never feared the terrorist with his false or manipulative grievance, nor have I feared him with his imaginary grievance. But it is a foolish man who provides him with a real grievance.

I plead with the Government tonight to try to find a way to make progress. Ensure at least that a separate panel is established with no other mandate than to review the specific cases. With all our problems we do not need 60 Rudolf Hesses in Ulster.

After 10 years these boys, now young men, must as a matter of simple justice be told when they can expect to be released. It has been seen over the years that Secretaries of State come and go, Ministers come and go, but we who live in Ulster must remain. In spite of our grief and suffering and difficulties we still have a mind to reestablish the caring society we once knew.

The Minister, I know, will want only to assist us along that road. I believe that he will not set his face against the unanimous will of all those who are elected to serve the people of Ulster or against the welfare of those who were 10 years ago the weakest and most vulnerable of our citizens. If Ulster can care, if Ulster can forgive, who would hinder that first step forward?

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Has the hon. Member the permission of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and the Minister to address the House?

Mr. Maginnis

I hope that the Minister will have time to reply.

11.52 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott)

I intend to do that. I was content for the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) to speak for one or two minutes, which I understood was his intention, if the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was also content.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for raising this issue tonight, so early after the reassembly of Parliament, and for bringing before the House the question of those young people who are serving indeterminate sentences, the sentence being imprisonment during the pleasure of the Secretary of State. I shall try to cover as much of the ground as he did and I think that I can deal with virtually all the main points that he raised.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I take a close personal interest in the cases that come up for review. I shall deal with the points about the tone and content of the letters which are sent to those who make representations on such cases later.

The sentence is described somewhat differently in the comparable legislation in Britain. In England and Wales the sentence for those convicted of murder under the age of 18 is that they are to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. That was formerly the terminology in Scotland as well, although in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 the mandatory sentence of equivalence is described there as detention without limit of time. Many may feel that is a more accurate description of the sentence that is imposed.

The reference in the Northern Ireland legislation to the Secretary of State arises as a consequence of the introduction of direct rule. The powers were formerly vested in the Governor of Northern Ireland acting on behalf of Her Majesty and they passed to the Secretary of State under the direct rule legislation.

I must remind the House that all those people who have been sentenced to this punishment in Northern Ireland have been convicted of murder. The House has particularly in mind more recent events, but we should not forget the catalogue of horrors that have been inflicted by men of violence on the people of Northern Ireland over the past 14 or 15 years. Every single one of those young people has been convicted of murder. I am bound to say that I know of no difference in the way that the courts come to a view about a decision convicting someone of murder depending on the age of the person concerned. Evidence must have been presented in court to enable it to convict someone of that crime.

As the hon. Gentleman has reminded the House, a conviction for murder can mean many different levels of involvement in the crime. But we should, nevertheless, remember that we are dealing with the crime of murder and those responsible for it. At the moment in Northern Ireland there are about 60 young men serving this type of sentence for a crime committed in most cases when they were very young— some of them as young as 14. The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), said in reply to a written question last November that in considering indeterminate sentences generally — that is to say both life sentences and pleasure cases—he would deal with them in a way that fully reflected their gravity. I believe that the public would expect us to make sure that that element was reflected in the length of time served in prison, quite apart from the special circumstances of Northern Ireland to which the hon. Gentleman so eloquently referred. The approach outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney is also that of the present Secretary of State.

I receive and see letters that are written by the families of some of these young men, and I know the uncertainty that the pleasure sentence creates, both for the inmates concerned and the families outside. The hon. Gentleman drew comparisons with persons who are sentenced to fixed terms of imprisonment and who can calculate precisely when they will be released, provided that they do not lose their remission. But I am afraid that that element of uncertainty is inevitable—although I recognise the strain that it can cause — as long as the law makes an indeterminate sentence the mandatory penalty for murder.

There is no way in which the authorities can predict at an early stage how long a person will be required to serve under an indeterminate sentence. That is for the Secretary of State of the day to decide after consultation, as required by law, with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if he is available.

The hon. Gentleman made several comments about the lack of official information given to inmates and their relatives about the procedures for the review of indeterminate sentences. That is something that I have very much in mind at the moment. I am aware that both the Home Office and the Scottish Office have a useful information leaflet that is freely available to inquirers. I am considering whether we might have a similar document in Northern Ireland and whether we might develop procedures for informing inmates of the results of reviews of their cases. But I do not want to turn this procedure for review into some quasi-judicial process. If people have been sentenced by the courts to indeterminate sentences, it is a matter for the Executive to decide when they may be released on licence back into the community.

Nevertheless, without going too far down that road, I believe that there is a very good case for more information being given to the families outside and the inmates. In the not too distant future I hope to be able to give the House some further information on that front.

I should like to say a word or two about the review and reporting procedures. The duty on the Secretary of State to release prisoners sentenced to indeterminate periods because they have committed the crime of murder—and in life sentence cases, other grave crimes—is a very onerous responsibility which I believe all Secretaries of State, including the present one and his predecessor, treat very seriously indeed. I said before, and reiterate now that the public will expect those who have been convicted of serious crimes to serve a period that appropriately marks the gravity of them. We know only too well of some of the atrocious outrages that have been committed in Northern Ireland in recent times.

We also have to be clear that the public will not be put at risk by the release of somebody who might become involved once again in violence or paramilitary activity. Those factors have to be taken into account, and of course the behaviour of the person while in prison may provide a very good clue to the likelihood of them re-offending once released.

Mr. Maginnis

Does the Minister agree that we release many people who have been imprisoned for terrorist offences—which are only just a little less than murder—and that those adult, mature terrorists become involved again and again in terrorism? There is much evidence of that. When young people of perhaps 14 years of age have to serve 10 years — equivalent to 20 years of a determinate sentence—it is more than a lifetime.

Mr. Scott

Because some people who have served a determinate sentence imposed by the court become reinvolved with terrorism, that is no reason for letting out people who are serving an indeterminate sentence. It is onerous responsibility to decide whether people who have been convicted of murder are likely to involve themselves again in violence.

I shall explain a little about the way in which we decide whether people should be released on licence. Cases are reviewed at regular intervals by the Northern Ireland prison department. Reviews are conducted on the basis of full information about the crime, the prisoner's part in it, his age and background at the time and reports from the prison in which the inmate is serving his or her sentence. It is a caricature to describe the procedure as a 10 or 15 minute interview with the governor of the establishment in which the prisoner is detained.

The review is conducted day by day and involves assessing the behaviour of the prisoner as he comes in touch with prison officers and others in the establishment. All reports are taken into account. At an appropriate time cases are referred to a life sentence review board chaired by the permanent under-secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office. The board then makes recommendations to Ministers about release. There are no hard and fast rules about the timing of reviews, paticularly in the later stages. Cases are considered on their own facts and merits.

Since 1981 seven people serving sentences of detention during pleasure have been released on licence or have had provisional release dates set. That is seven out of a total of over 60 — a not insubstantial proportion of those sentenced. Further cases are due to come up for review. I would expect the trickle of releases to continue, subject to proper consideration of the gravity of the offence of which the young people have been convicted and a proper assessment of the likelihood of re-offence.

Youth and immaturity at the time of the crime are important consideraions in the reviews. I am as aware as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone of the role that the "Godfather" played in encouraging many young people down the road which led to prison.

The hon. Gentleman said that many relatives of such inmates believe that their letters have produced bland and unhelpful responses. It would be wrong if those letters, which are as courteous and helpful as possible, aroused hopes which were incapable of being fulfilled in the hearts of families. When we cannot make a forecast we should not raise hopes which might then be dashed.

It is difficult to conduct a day-by-day assessment when prisoners are confined to compounds. Those whoo chose to remain in compounds are not outside the review procedure. We do our best within the limitations of the compound system to judge behaviour and likelihood of re-offence.

Each individual case is carefully reviewed in the light of the circumstances of the crime and all other relevant factors. The age at the time of the crime is taken fully into account. I take a close personal interest. I am aware of the factors which the hon. Gentleman mentioned tonight. I hope in due course that it will be possible for more of these young people to find their way back into the community and to play a constructive part in the life of Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.