HC Deb 30 January 1989 vol 146 cc87-93 8.30 pm
Mr. Archer

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 15, line 15, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-half.

The purpose of the amendment is to retain the existing position with regard to the remission of sentence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, so that by definition it relates almost exclusively to people serving sentences in Northern Ireland. If it will assist the Minister when he replies, I accept at once that on reflection, as the amendment is intended only to retain the existing position, we might have done better to move to delete the clause. I am sure that the Minister will not take refuge in draftsmanship, because the draftsmen will have ample opportunity during the discussions on the Bill to take it away to whatever dark recesses they inhabit, turn it into classical English and return it to us.

The Government are proposing to change the maximum period of remission from one half the sentence to one third. No doubt a casual reader of the Notice Paper—not the Minister, because he will have read it carefully—might say that that is the position in the rest of the United Kingdom because in the rest of the United Kingdom, give or take a few exceptions, the maximum period for remission is one third. "Why," a casual reader may ask rhetorically, "should it be different in Northern Ireland?"

The answer is to be found in the parole system. In the rest of the United Kingdom, normally a prisoner serving more than 12 months may earn remission up to one third of the sentence and then serve a further one third on parole. He may actually serve only one third of his sentence in custody. There is no parole system in Northern Ireland, and that is the reason for the difference in remission.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was Home Secretary, he introduced the provision for half remission in Northern Ireland. On 4 November 1975 he referred to a prison population unnecesarily high because of the absence of a parole scheme".—[Official Report, 4 November 1975; Vol. 889, c. 238.] That was true, and it will not be a blinding revelation to the House if I state that the effect of the proposal in the Bill will be to increase the prison population at a time when we all agree that there is a crisis of overcrowding in the prisons.

If the Minister knows anything about the situation in Northern Ireland, I am sure that he will agree that it is not unreasonable to try to get prisoners, particularly young prisoners, out of prison in Northern Ireland as early as is reasonably possible. I cannot speak with knowledge of the present position because I am a little out of date. However, when I knew anything about the prisons in Northern Ireland, they were operating as the Sandhurst of the paramilitaries. Young people in prison received training by the paramilitaries in the techniques of paramilitary activity. It is not unreasonable to want to get them out of prison.

An extraordinary aspect of the proposal in the Bill is that it runs completely contrary to the recommendations of the Carlisle committee. It recommended in paragraph 274 of its report that those serving sentences of less than four years should be eligible for parole after they have served one half of their sentence.

I would be the first to admit that we got this wrong in Committee. When the asymmetry was pointed out by Justice, at the suggestion of Justice we tried to restore symmetry by proposing the introduction of a parole system in Northern Ireland. On reflection, I accept that that was not the right solution. It would impose an impossible strain on the probation service, particularly when it is dealing with people who in many cases regard themselves as political prisoners. It is perhaps ironic that, when the present one half sentence remission was introduced, it was expressly stated that it heralded the end of the special category status. It was said that the two went arm in arm.

It cannot be said that the present system has been outstandingly unsuccessful. The reconviction rate for adult male offenders in Northern Ireland is 42 per cent. as against 57 per cent. in England and Wales. The reconviction rate for those convicted of scheduled offences is only one in five. It is perhaps worth remembering that the crime rate overall in Northern Ireland is lower than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

When the right hon. and learned Member quotes percentages of those reoffending in terms of scheduled offences, does he accept the difficulty facing the authorities in convicting people of scheduled offences? Does he recall that, of the 177 murders committed by the IRA in my constituency, 92 per cent. have not been resolved through the courts by the due process of law? Therefore, he should recognise that percentages can be deceptive.

Mr. Archer

Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Statistics must be viewed with some reserve. I have always had a suspicion of statistics since I saw a document headed "The House of Commons broken down by age and sex." But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that arithmetically the same problems of conviction apply at both ends of the equation; just as it may well be true that there are people who commit scheduled offences and are not convicted a second time, there are those who have not been convicted the first time. Arithmetically the statistic evens out; and it is still significant and worth quoting that only one in five of those convicted a first time are reconvicted a second time of a scheduled offence when we consider the reconviction rate of 53 per cent. across the board for the United Kingdom.

No case has been made by the Government for the proposal in the first instance.

Mr. Norris

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to establish a disparity between arrangements in the United Kingdom and those in Northern Ireland. Will he comment on the effect on his argument of the 1983 announcement by the Home Secretary on policy towards remission on sentences for crimes of violence which, in effect, established that such criminals would serve a minimum of two thirds of their sentence? Would not the acceptance of his amendment mean that a prisoner on the mainland would serve longer for a terrorist offence than he would in the Province? Would that not be a worse disparity than he is suggesting currently exists? Does not the Bill make logic out of what is at present a rather illogical situation?

Mr. Archer

I accept that it is an illogical situation, and that the most logical way of dealing with asymmetry would be to have the same situation on both sides of the water. If we cannot do that, the best that we could do would be to have the same provisions for remission. It may be that we have set ourselves an insoluble problem, but what we would like to hear—I do not want to take up too much time because this is an abbreviated debate, the reason for which is to be laid squarely at the door of the Government's business managers—is the case for the Government's proposals. We discussed this in Committee, and I am bound to say that the reasons for the proposal were never made clear to us. Perhaps the most helpful course I can adopt is to sit down and invite the Minister to intervene at a fairly early stage to tell us the Government's case for their proposal and then we can debate that case.

Mr. Mallon

I believe that a most fundamental mistake will be contained within this Bill. for a number of reasons. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Ireland knows the potency of the gaol situation. Anyone with only a cursory knowledge of Irish history will realise the way in which it has been changed not in the streets, not in the fields and not in the roads, but in the gaols.

I do not have time or the inclination to go back over the past, but I believe that we would all ask the question: if the action taken in 1916 had been different, would things be different now on the island of Ireland? If, in the recent past, a broad view had been taken within the prison service, would we have had the trauma of the hunger strike and the effect that that had and is still having in Northern Ireland and throughout Ireland? When we talk about prisons, we are talking about probably the most sensitive area of life in Northern Ireland, which has had and no doubt will have a substantial bearing on what happens in future. I believe that one of the keys to a solution to this problem lies within the prisons and the approach to them.

8.45 pm

I spend quite a bit of time talking to young people in the prisons, be they Loyalists or Republicans, and invariably the same sort of attitude comes through. They say, "What are we doing sitting here for 15 years when other people are out enjoying themselves? Why have we become the martyrs for spurious ideologies when, in effect, the world is still going on outside?"

s I have no doubt that, rather than keeping people in gaol, getting people out is the way in which we should be moving. It has been seen since the early 1980s that, when people have been released back into the community in a spirit of consideration, that permeates its way down through the community—right down into that person's family and street. It has had a remarkable effect, as I have seen in my constituency. It is for that reason that the godfathers of violence—the people who run the paramilitary organisations—are afraid of the situation in the prisons being eased. It is there that we are making the fundamental and crucial mistake.

The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) asked what the Government's reasons are for the Bill. The only reason given in Committee was that it would act as a deterrent. If anything has been proved over the years, it is that prison does not deter those people who are highly charged and motivated ideologically. The given reason does not stand up.

I should have thought that what happens on the streets, in the towns, and in the villages in Ireland shows that if, one treats the prison situation in a hamfisted way, we will end up with trouble.

Sir Leon Brittan, the former Secretary of State, made mistake after mistake about prisons and was told time after time that he was building up something which would have disastrous effects. Arrogance, however, got in the way of his powers to listen, and we ended up with the most traumatic situation, one for which we are still paying. Many of the young people in prison today would not be there had it not been for that terrible period surrounding the hunger strikes and deaths in prison.

I again ask the Government to listen to the view of the people who live in Ireland—because they know instinctively and see it in their everyday lives—that this is the wrong path to take.

The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West pointed out that the parole situation in Ireland is not the same as in the rest of Britain or the Republic of Ireland. The parole system does not exist, because the probation board would not be in a position to fulfil the functions that such a board does in other places. People are sentenced against a background of emergency legislation, such as the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Diplock courts. It has been sought to put a normal face on an abnormal type of process, which leads to conviction and a process which of itself is doing damage to the cause of finding a solution in Northern Ireland.

Another anomaly is that of scheduled offences, which were discussed at great length at Committee. There are unlimited examples of people who commit a scheduled offence being convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 for an offence which was patently nothing to do with paramilitary activity are unlimited. This clause takes no cognisance of that and makes no allowance for it, but simply ploughs along a mistaken road.

Probably the most damaging part of the clause is the problem that it creates for young offenders. Northern Ireland has at present a large number of young offenders, because of the socio-economic situation in which they must live. We shall see a situation developing where young people who are sentenced are committed for civil offences to a young offenders centre, but, if they come under the heading of this clause, will find themselves serving their sentences out—for an offence which patently was not a scheduled offence in the first place and which was being served in a young offenders centre—under the temporary provisions Act. For that reason, the clause is a great mistake.

Unless we can reach the stage at which young people are convinced that the system of law and justice not only punishes them but protects them, we are fighting a losing battle. The problems will simply demand another piece of legislation next year, or in five or 10 years. Where does that lead? Unfortunately, the unholy spiral continues.

Presently, the prison population in the North of Ireland is going down. That is one of the remarkable things about the Bill; that, at the time when the prison population is going down, we are about to extend the length of sentences to keep more people in prison. It is clear from the treatment of life-sentence prisoners and Secretary of State pleasure cases, how an imaginative, charitable approach, which is based on good judgment tempered by that quality of mercy necessary when dealing with prisoners, has had an effect. We are curtailing that effect in a brutal, unthinking manner.

During the past eight years, how many people committed to young offenders centres have subsequently been charged and sentenced for scheduled offences under the emergency legislation? I asked that question in Committee, but I did not get an answer. I hope that I shall today, because this is a crucial point. I do not think it is good enough to say that the Northern Ireland Minister is not here so the figures are unavailable. I put that question on record in Committee, and it is the Government's job to provide those figures. Unless we have those figures, we will make a decision in the absence of the necessary information.

Mr. Norris

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will be aware that, in the United Kingdom, the peak age for offending is 15 years for both sexes. A third of all reported crimes are committed by people under the age of 16. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that those 5 per cent. who commit 70 per cent. of the crimes for which conviction has been obtained—the recidivist element—almost inevitably had an early association with the criminal justice system. His argument that more should be done to keep people out of prison would find favour in all quarters of the House. It is welcome that the prison population in Northern Ireland is reducing and that, in the United Kingdom, the total of reported offences is reducing.

It is a fatal admixture to go on to deduce from the oft-quoted theory that prisons are merely universities of crime that we should not deal severely with sentences for terrorism.

Mr. Mallon

indicated assent.

Mr. Norris

I note that the hon. Gentleman is nodding, so I will not labour the point. Suffice it to say that the public would be outraged if they felt that those convicted of crimes of violence and crimes demanding sentences of more than five years were not to be kept in prison, on the grounds that their continued detention would allow them to practise their criminal skills.

Everybody who deals with crime and the judicial system accepts that, to some degree, prison is a university of crime. I do not believe that any serious attempt should be made, however, to exclude serious crimes of violence from the due process of the law and the due sentences of the court.

In the absence of parole, the real inequity is that since the announcement in 1983 by the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, a terrorist convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom will serve two thirds of his sentence in prison, whereas in the Province it is possible that he will serve only one half of his sentence. Surely that is inequitable. The Bill will rectify that omission.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

For much the same reasons as have been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), I cannot commend the amendment to the House. We need to be clear about the nature of what we are doing.

First, the provisions are not retrospective; they are prospective only. Secondly, they apply to scheduled offences in respect of which sentences of five years or more have been imposed. It will be helpful to remind the House of the classes of crime that fall within the list of the scheduled offences. They are murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated burglary, robbery, membership of a proscribed organisation, and explosives, firearms and hijacking offences. One can understand at once that they are offences that are capable of being the most serious kind. For the purposes of the Bill they must attract a sentence of five years or more.

The purpose of the Government's change in the law, as set out in the Bill, is to reduce remission from 50 per cent. to one third. In answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), that brings the situation in Northern Ireland broadly in line with that in Great Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest rightly said, the position on parole has changed substantially as a result of the statement made in 1983 by the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan. He made it plain that, normally, parole will not be granted to offenders who are convicted of offences of drugs or violence which have attracted sentences of five years or more. As a general rule in such cases, parole will not be granted. Consequently such people must serve either two thirds or nearly two thirds of the sentence imposed by the courts.

If we accepted the amendment and left the present situation unchanged, we would have a bizarre and unacceptable state of affairs. People convicted of terrorist-type offences in Great Britain would serve longer than those convicted of similar offences in Northern Ireland. That cannot be right. It is against that background that the Government have introduced the proposals in the Bill which will make persons convicted of offences in Northern Ireland serve, broadly speaking, the same period of imprisonment as will be served by persons in Great Britain convicted of like offences. That is right.

I have a personal regard for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). We served on the Standing Committee for a long time and I know his personal integrity. However, in this matter I cannot agree with him. We are dealing with people who have been convicted of abominable offences, for which long sentences have been imposed by the courts. The idea that people convicted of such offences should leave prison after having served only half the sentence that the court thinks appropriate makes no sense and is abhorrent to most people who reflect on it. I make no apology for saying that the criminal law is, at least in part, about punishment. That is a perfectly proper part of the criminal law.

Ms. Mowlam

rose—

Mr. Hogg

I shall not give way, because we must finish by 9 o'clock. Deterrence and retribution are also perfectly proper parts of the criminal law. I see no reason why we should not say to people convicted of serious terrorist offences for which they have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, "You will have to serve a substantial part of the sentence imposed by the court." To tell them that they will have to serve only 50 per cent. of the sentence makes no sense. Two thirds is wholly right and anything less would be wrong.

It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [23 January] and the resolution this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the remaining amendment moved by a member of the Government.

Forward to