APPLICATIONS TO REVOKE DECLARATION (Hansard, 17 June 1998)

§ Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke)
I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 4, line 27, at end add `and the Secretary of State shall make such an application if the condition in section 3(8)(b) is not satisfied.'.

§ The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 23, in page 4, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert— '(2) The Commissioners shall revoke the declaration if any of the applicable conditions in section 3 are no longer met.'. Clause stand part.
Government new clause 4—Revocation of declaration.

§ Mr. Hunter
I am somewhat surprised by the absence of the two hon. Members whose names appear above mine in support of the amendment. The only point I need make in moving these self-explanatory amendments is that—as I understand the situation—they are substantially reflected in new clause 4, tabled by the Government, and therefore the amendments cease to be relevant to our deliberations. Effectively, the amendments have been taken on board by the Government and have been overtaken by events.

§ The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram)
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) pointed out that new clause 4 replaces the import of amendments Nos. 22 and 23, and I shall give some background to this important area.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) drew attention to a problem with the Bill as it is drafted. He said: clause 8 needs to be strengthened. In particular, an obligation should be imposed to seek revocation if the conditions in clause 3(8) have not been satisfied. Moreover, the commissioners should have a duty to revoke declarations if the conditions in clause 3 are no longer met."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1100.] The Government have taken note of those points—which were well made—and considered them.
Clause 8 is intended to ensure that a prisoner who receives a declaration from the commissioners under clause 3 but who is not granted immediate release should still meet the criteria set out in clause 3 at the time when he comes to be released. The Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State a power to refer a case back to the commissioners if she considers that the prisoner no longer meets the criteria.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann identified that it is not clear whether the commissioners are under a duty to reconsider the case against the criteria. Helpfully, he also drew attention to the need to take account of changes of individual circumstances of the prisoner and of the 436 consequences of an organisation that was previously not specified by the Secretary of State being specified. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) tabled amendments Nos. 22 and 23 to try to deal with that problem.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)
I take it that that refers only to prisoners before they are released.

§ Mr. Ingram
I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps if he contributes to the debate he will be able to help me.
We considered the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to be insufficient, and we tabled new clause 4. The effect of the new clause is to place the Secretary of State under a duty to refer the case of a prisoner back to the commissioners if she considers that, either as a consequence of an order made under clause 3(8) or because of a change of circumstances, the prisoner no longer satisfies the conditions set out in clause 3.
That means that, if an organisation returned to violence, any prisoners who supported the organisation and who remained in custody would be referred back to the commissioners, who would consider whether they continued to meet the criteria for release. The Secretary of State may also refer the case back if she becomes aware of evidence or information which was not available to the commissioners when they granted the declaration. In either case, the commissioners are under a duty to revoke their declaration if the conditions in clause 3 are not satisfied.
The Government consider that new clause 4 meets the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and we ask the House to accept that the existing clause 8 should be replaced with new clause 4. It is worth while paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has dealt carefully and responsibly with a specific weakness in the Bill. In light of our other debates on the Bill, that seems to be the way in which we can make progress in amending and improving the Bill. We have had some grandstanding over the past couple of days in The Daily Telegraph and The Times, but that does not help us to deal with a complex Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that, by careful analysis and consideration, we can take the issue forward.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)
Can I have some clarification from the Minister? He may be aware that the Irish News reported at the weekend that attacks were carried out in the Markets area of my constituency by the official IRA. He may be aware also that Mr. Turley, a constituent of mine, was murdered at the weekend. At a time when the House is against judicial sentencing for capital offences, he was murdered without any trial. He may have been a drug runner, but that does not justify what happened. It has been put to me that the body which did that can be described as the SAS of Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein. Would that type of thing be considered in the light of new clause 4?

§ Mr. Ingram
First, I will not speculate on matters raised in the press. However, from the way in which the hon. Gentleman has described the issue, it does not seem to be a description of events which would be reported to 437 me. As he knows, we never discuss information which may be in the hands of the Secretary of State or myself and which has been passed to us by the security forces. We must consider the details. Clearly, our sympathy would go the family of anyone murdered, because they are still victims—irrespective of what they may have been involved in.

§ Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone)
Is there a loophole in the Bill? The Secretary of State can apply to the commissioners before the prisoner's release, but the commissioners can grant an application if a prisoner has not been released. Does that mean that if the determination date came up after an application by the Secretary of State, the prisoner could be released and out before the commissioners re-heard the case? Would it not be wiser and more prudent that, once the Secretary of State had made a declaration, a prisoner should not be released until the commissioners had again heard the case?

§ Mr. Ingram
That was a rather convoluted explanation of a set of circumstances—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what we want to achieve in new clause 4. I do not want to go through the whole import of the new clause again, except to say that it was designed to ensure that the belt-and-braces approach could be properly exercised. Clause 8 contained a weakness, which the new clause has resolved. Having explained the purpose of the new clause, I commend it to the Committee.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
The Minister invited me to return to the issue, so I ask him whether he can confirm that the new clause deals only with prisoners before they are released, and that it will not affect people who have been released but who are in such circumstances as are envisaged in the new clause. The new clause seems to have effect any time before the prisoner is released". It seems to deal only with prisoners who are in custody; it does not cover a prisoner who has been released but who still has the same relationship to the organisation of which he was a member.
The Minister congratulates the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on being diligent in his business, but has not the Minister weakened in carrying out his business? Should not the new clause cover both parts of the equation—the prisoner who has not been released and the prisoner who has been released?

§ Mr. Ingram
The hon. Gentleman is now trying to amend the new clause, but he had the opportunity to try to ensure that any weakness he saw in clause 8 was dealt with. If he had had a major concern, it would have been helpful if it had been expressed in the form of an amendment, although I can tell him that, of course, the licence covers those who are released. On the specific points raised by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), the matter must, in the circumstances that he described, rest with the commissioners.

§ Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)
The Minister is wrong to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for 438 North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) missed the opportunity to table an amendment that would cover the issue, as that issue is also dealt with by clause 9. Moreover, amendment No. 44, which we tabled, would ensure that the period after a prisoner was released is covered.
On new clause 4, we are talking about a narrow, even trivial, issue, in that we are concerned only about the band of time after the commission has reached a conclusion but before a prisoner is released—something could happen in the few hours or days between those two events.

§ Mr. Hunter
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.