§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 37, after 'Ireland', insert—
'( )that he is not involved in directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people,'.
The First Deputy ChairmanWith this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 4, line 38, leave out
'in the case of a life prisoner'.No. 44, in page 4, line 39, at end insert—'(d) that any organisation which at the time of his release under this Act he supported, but which was not then specified as a terrorist organisation under section 3(8), has not subsequently been specified as such an organisation under that section.'.
§ Mr. MacKayAmendment No. 12 covers a simple, but important, point. There is a genuine fear, which I hope that the Minister shares, that a terrorist organisation that has renounced violence and is observing a ceasefire could subcontract its work to another organisation. If the Secretary of State found that that was happening, it would be important that she had powers under clause 9 to cover people in such organisations—otherwise, a coach and horses would be driven through the Bill in a way that I know that the Minister would not want. We believe that amendment No. 12 would add weight to the Bill.
Amendment No. 13 is similar to an amendment that we tabled earlier this week—we do not see why the measures should apply only to life prisoners. We did not press the amendment on Monday and we shall not necessarily press this amendment, but perhaps the Minister has now had time to reflect on the matter. I do not want to fall out with him over this, but we believe that the amendment would strengthen the Bill. I do not believe that ordinary, reasonable people will understand why only life prisoners, and not others, represent a threat to society. The Committee will be aware that almost all terrorist prisoners represent a danger and that life prisoners are not necessarily always the most dangerous. We are revisiting old ground—I make no apology for that—and I simply ask the Minister to reflect further on the matter. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
§ Mr. IngramAs was said on Second Reading and earlier in Committee, the licence conditions under the Bill 439 are extremely demanding. The Secretary of State may recall a prisoner if she believes that he has broken, or is likely to break, a condition of his licence.
For the record, it is worth spelling out those conditions again. First, the prisoner must not support, or be likely to support, an organisation identified as a terrorist organisation under clause 3(8). Secondly, the prisoner must not be, or be likely to become, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Thirdly, in the case of a life sentence prisoner, the prisoner must not be, or become likely to be, a danger to the public. Those are three exacting licence conditions, which go well beyond any that are currently applied in Northern Ireland. They are designed specifically to apply to prisoners who have been involved in acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
If life sentence prisoners were to be involved in such offences as are suggested in the amendment, it would be open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider that they were a danger to the public and to suspend the licence accordingly. The ordinary criminal law is entirely adequate to deal with prisoners serving fixed-term sentences who have committed ordinary criminal offences that are not related to terrorism.
With the exception of some sex offenders, prisoners serving fixed-term sentences in Northern Ireland for non-terrorist offences who are released are not subject to any licence conditions. If they commit further offences, they are dealt with in the usual way and sentenced for those further offences. In some cases, prisoners who commit a further offence after being released from prison may be subject to a further penalty in respect of that part of the sentence that was remitted. Under the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a court has a discretion to make an order requiring a prisoner to serve the remaining part of a previous sentence before beginning a new sentence. That provision will apply also to prisoners released under this legislation.
The involvement of terrorist organisations in organised crime is worthy of further consideration. We are dealing with different issues and that matter was raised on Second Reading. I want to consider whether the licence conditions should be extended to include such activity when a terrorist organisation moves across into ordinary organised crime as set out in preceding debates. We may well have to consider that matter.
Amendment No. 13 would extend a third licence condition—that a prisoner should not become a danger to the public— to fixed-term prisoners. During the debate on clause 3, when we considered amendments Nos. 7, 55, 33, 35, 53 and 10, I set out the arguments against making risk one of the criteria that the commissioners should be required to consider when deciding whether a fixed-term prisoner should be released. That debate and argument are set out in column 42 of the Official Report on Monday 15 June. At that time, I explained that a life sentence was intended to mark the particular nature of murder and that it could also be imposed for other serious crimes if risk were a concern.
I remind the Committee that, under normal law, prisoners serving fixed-term sentences are not subject to a risk assessment before being released. As risk is not a condition that fixed-term prisoners must satisfy to be released unless the risk is that the prisoner will engage in 440 terrorist activity, it is therefore not appropriate for such a test to be imposed as a licence condition. If it were imposed, it could cause the following problem. A prisoner could have his licence suspended by the Secretary of State and revoked by the commissioners on the ground that he was, or was likely to become, a danger to the public. The prisoner could then apply to the commissioners for a declaration under clause 3. They would have to consider the prisoner for release against the conditions set out in clause 3 and, if those were met, make a further declaration in his favour. Clearly, a state of affairs in which a prisoner could be recalled to prison for breaching his licence conditions but released again because he met the criteria in clause 3 would be unsatisfactory, in particular as the prisoner in question would not have committed a further criminal offence. It would have a yo-yo effect, which would clearly be undesirable.
Of course, in an earlier debate we dealt with that matter and with the reasons why we did not feel that the provision should apply. Logically, those should similarly apply to the licence conditions. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to withdraw the amendment. There is a clear relationship between the release and licence conditions. We could not allow the sort of back-and-forwards process that would result if the amendments were agreed to.
§ Mr. HunterThe Minister's comments did not embrace amendment No. 44. The argument for that amendment, to which I have added my name, is so explicitly self-explanatory because of its wording that I do not need to elaborate on it in detail. The basic argument is: what would happen if a prisoner had cleared obstacle 3(8) and the organisation of which he is a member or is deemed to support had been specified not to be a terrorist organisation but, while he is on release on licence, it is then deemed to have become a terrorist organisation by the Secretary of State? The amendment, which I support, would mean that it would be a case of, "Tough luck, you're back inside." Does the Minister agree that the amendment has some valid points?
§ Mr. Peter RobinsonI, too, will speak to amendment No. 44. To some extent, the Minister seemed to support the argument behind it by saying that he would table a new clause later. The Minister recognises that whether a prisoner should be released is based on certain factors—if he supports a terrorist organisation, that would show that he should not be released. Under clause 3, which we have already debated, if the commissioners decided to release a prisoner but the organisation he supported was subsequently specified as a terrorist organisation, he would not be released. What could be the difference save that the prisoner is out of gaol?
The prisoner is released from gaol not because of anything that he or she might have done but because of the status of his or her organisation. Surely, the status of the organisation must then determine whether the prisoner should remain out of gaol. If the prisoner is to remain in gaol if the organisation is deemed to be a terrorist organisation, it must also be right that he should return to gaol if it is subsequently listed by the Secretary of State as such.
§ Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)I wish to support amendments Nos. 12 and 44, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) hit the nail on the head about the latter. Prisoners will be released not because of any great change of heart on their behalf or any particular merits that they have, but because the organisation to which they belong is perceived by the Secretary of State to have satisfied certain criteria and can therefore be listed as not participating in terrorism. Having been released through no merit on his part but purely because of his status as a member of an organisation that has temporarily, or for a ploy, renounced violence, it would be extraordinary if the prisoner did not then go back to gaol because of his status when that organisation undertook violence again or went back to terrorism so that the Secretary of State had once again to proscribe it. To me, that is self-evident and I think it would be obvious to every ordinary and reasonable person.
I hope that the Minister will not say that the amendment is rewriting the Belfast agreement. Clearly, it is not rewriting anything at all. Surely it is a common-sense approach. Those prisoners released under the Bill purely because their host organisation has given up violence and satisfied the criteria must be returned to gaol when their host organisation once again takes up violence or, to be more precise, terrorism.
On amendment No. 12, does the definition in the Bill that the prisoner
does not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Irelandembrace those other acts of violence that terrorists carry out in the pursuit of terrorism? I am suggesting not the scenario that the Minister described of a terrorist organisation moving into organised crime, drugs or other rackets, but the present situation in Northern Ireland, in which organisations may not be setting off major bombs that attract the media's attention, but people are being beaten up and kneecapped, pickaxes are being taken to their legs on a daily basis, and they are subject to violence in the course of terrorist intimidation. That intimidation does not necessarily raise money for organised crime, but may impose a terrorist will on the community.Many acts of violence seem not to be caught by the definition of terrorism that involves being
concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".I am happy to be corrected, and I admit that my recollection of which offences are classed as terrorism is a bit hazy, but would some acts of violence, such as kneecapping, that are being committed by terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland against other citizens in Northern Ireland be classified as terrorism?I support the amendment because it seems that those who are not directly involved in terrorism but who are directing, assisting in or instigating acts of violence are furthering the aims of terrorism and should, therefore, be caught by the Bill. I am worried that the clause 9 definition of terrorism is too narrow. It may restrict us to those involved in planting bombs or shooting members of the security forces, and it may not cover the all-too-regular occurrences of other acts of violence 442 perpetrated for the furtherance of terrorism against the citizens of Northern Ireland, but not prosecuted as terrorist offences.
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyThe Minister chided me for not raising this matter before, but it should be raised under clause 9. This point is to do not with a prisoner who is still in custody but with those who are out of custody when the organisation to which they belong has been found to be engaged in violence. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has illustrated the point by mentioning the declaration that the old IRA has recommenced its fight. That organisation is not proscribed, although the proscription "Irish Republican Army" is broad. For years, the old IRA has claimed that it was no longer involved, and that that term covered the Provisional IRA. However, the purpose of the amendments is simply to ensure that the long arm of the law will be able to reach out to bring back to custody members of organisations that have recommenced their violence. That is important, and should be dealt with.
§ Mr. MacKayI am grateful to the Minister for his replies. I shall be happy not to press amendment No. 13 on the basis of his assurances. However, I want to press a little further on amendment No. 12 although the Minister need not be concerned that I intend to press it to a vote as I shall withdraw it in due course if he agrees to consider it further on Report or to have it considered in the House of Lords.
The amendment is straightforward and non-controversial. If the Minister flicks back a little through the Bill, he will find in clause 3(9) that
In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation…(c) is directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations".We have deliberately used the same phraseology in amendment No. 12, because it covers the point well. I cannot for the life of me see why it cannot also apply to licensed prisoners. Perhaps the Minister will wish to reflect on the point rather than giving a definite answer now, and I should be happy for him to return on Report or to have the point raised in the House of Lords. I shall withdraw the amendment, but would be interested in any observation from the Minister. I reserve the right to have the amendment reintroduced in the House of Lords if there is no satisfactory response.
The First Deputy ChairmanI should say that, if the hon. Gentleman wants further information, he should ask the Minister for it and then withdraw his amendment in the light of that information. Before he mentions withdrawing it again, another Member may wish to speak.
§ Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry)A couple of interesting points have arisen. The list of proscribed organisations mentions simply the IRA, but the organisation that has been responsible for most of the violence for many years is the Provisional IRA. Exactly what is the legal position? Does "IRA" cover both, and if 443 so, what about the original IRA, now known as the official IRA, which, according to some newspapers, has come back to life?
§ Mr. Peter RobinsonAnd the Continuity IRA.
§ Mr. RossThere is the Continuity IRA, too. If we do not have the correct set of letters, might there be a defence in law? It might never have been used, but there is a possibility of it.
Amendment No. 12 raises the question of the subcontractors for the Provisional IRA and its fellow travellers. I think that the amendment is sensible, and I hope that the Minister will take on board what the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has said. He will recall that I tabled an earlier amendment to cover anyone involved in a criminal act, which I thought sufficiently wide to cover not only acts clearly concerned with terrorism, but lesser crimes such as punishment shootings, intimidation and violence. In any other part of the United Kingdom, those would be considered major crimes, and the fact that they can be described in Northern Ireland as minor crimes shows the background against which the debate is taking place. The Minister should reconsider. Not only are there subcontractors, but some crimes that are not listed should be associated with the greater crimes of the terrorist organisations.
Amendment No. 44 relates to the further problem of a possible change of name for terrorist organisations, by which they might manage to escape for long enough to get beyond the law by skipping across the border. As we know from bitter experience, there is not a snowball's chance of getting them back. I hope that the Minister will keep those points in mind.
§ Mr. IngramLet me deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) by returning to our discussion on release conditions for determinate sentence prisoners. The way in which that was defined still stands. To introduce a new criterion would make a difference to what currently applies. We judged that that was not appropriate. By reading that across to the licence conditions, I tried to explain that to have a different type of definition would mean that those who were going back and forward under a breach of licence as a determinate sentence prisoner would come back under release conditions, and then get out again. A fine judgment was needed on this point, and we tried to ensure that the current law on determinate sentence prisoners remained in place as far as the risk element was concerned. That is why the read-across applied between release conditions and licence conditions.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always prepared to consider matters, but the case must be better made. I do not criticise him; he argued his case well, but there would need to be more substance to it. We would not enhance the law of Northern Ireland by doing what he has suggested. That said, I am prepared to consider the matter because we must, in introducing any Bill, consider logicalities and illogicalities, and try to resolve them. We have judged that the way in which the Bill has been drafted is sufficient to deal with the circumstances for the release of determinate prisoners, but I am always prepared to consider further. The matter can always be examined further in another place.
444 The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) upbraided me for not alluding to amendment No. 44. That was because the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) had not yet spoken in favour of that amendment, so there was no point in debating it. Amendment No. 44 would enable prisoners who supported at the time of their release an organisation that was later specified as a terrorist organisation to be recalled automatically. I understand the reasoning behind that, but the amendment goes beyond what is required.
8.30 pm
Under the Bill as it stands, if a prisoner who is released on licence becomes a supporter of a terrorist organisation—an organisation specified by the Secretary of State under clause 3(8)—he is in breach of his licence and can be recalled. That would include circumstances in which an organisation that a prisoner supports was identified after he had been released as a terrorist organisation under clause 3(8); but for a prisoner to be recalled he must be, or be likely to become, a supporter of a terrorist organisation at the time of recall.
The fact that a prisoner supported such an organisation in the past is not a ground to recall him as that would be contrary to human rights law for the simple reason that a case has to be proven. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, East tries to advance his argument by shouting. He has an opportunity to debate the issue and I am trying to explain the background to the Bill and my understanding of the weaknesses of amendment No. 44. However, I understand the concept that he is trying to advance.
If a prisoner is released, and the organisation to which he belongs subsequently resumes its proscribed activities, why should there be an automatic assumption that the individual involved has not changed his ways? The hon. Member for Belfast, East probably thinks that no one can change their ways because he has never changed his thinking in all the time that he has been arguing his case in Northern Ireland; but people do change.
§ Mr. Macleanindicated dissent.
§ Mr. IngramThe right hon. Gentleman told us the other night that he was an eminent and highly competent Home Office Minister, and if he does not understand that those who are allowed out on licence may themselves have changed and should not be subject to recall because of the activities of an organisation to which they once belonged, I should like to hear his interpretation of what would be right.
§ Mr. MacleanThe Minister is unnecessarily churlish. I never made the claims that he so arrogantly ascribes to me. I merely cited some of the unfortunate experiences that I have had.
If the prisoner is released on licence, not because of any change in his behaviour but because of a change in the organisation to which he belongs, I do not see how it would be contrary to human rights laws for him to be recalled because of another change in that organisation's behaviour.
§ Mr. IngramI do not want to get into a load of hypothetical issues, but what happens if that prisoner, 445 who once supported that organisation, starts arguing against it when he is released on licence and helps us to understand its activities and even to bring other people to justice? If that organisation is then deemed to fall outwith the ambit of the Secretary of State's judgment on whether the prisoner should have been released in the first place, why should that prisoner be recalled, when he is now a good citizen? I do not understand the logic of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
Judgments on release will be made on a case-by-case basis even though an organisation may be deemed to satisfy other aspects of the legislation so that those who are associated with it can, in general, be released. If an individual prisoner does not satisfy the conditions, he will not be released even though the organisation to which he belongs is judged to have changed sufficiently to warrant the release of other prisoners.
§ Mr. MacleanLet us be clear. We are talking not about good citizens but about terrorists who have been sentenced fairly in a United Kingdom court to a term of imprisonment—perhaps five, 10 or 15 years, or life—for murder or terrorism. Those people are to be granted release because of a political settlement, and that release depends not on their behaviour, on their renouncing violence and becoming good citizens, but on the organisation to which they belong renouncing terrorism. Surely the Minister realises that, if that organisation goes back to terrorism, the prisoner has no merit in demanding that he remain at large.
§ Mr. IngramI do not want to be churlish again, but the right hon. Gentleman did indeed tell us about his experience as a Home Office Minister and how he was twice as good as a psychiatrist when it came to judging individual cases. Let me take him through the idiot's guide, because he has obviously forgotten everything that he should have learnt when he was a Minister about the rights of prisoners.
The right hon. Gentleman asks why a prisoner cannot be recalled if the organisation is specified after his release. The answer is simple: people can be recalled as a result only of their own behaviour and not of the behaviour of an organisation to which they once belonged. I cannot make it any clearer than that. Is he really telling the Committee that people who were once terrorists must remain terrorists for ever and can never renounce violence or say that they are sorry, or even help the security forces to bring others to justice? If that is his argument, I want him to defend it, but if he accepts my argument, he should remain seated.
§ Mr. MacleanI do not entirely accept the argument that the Minister is producing; those prisoners will be released early, but they will be released early because of a political settlement, in the normal run of events and irrespective of the Bill. In furtherance of a political settlement, the Bill will allow accelerated release, but that accelerated release will be based not on the good behaviour of prisoners but on the behaviour of the organisations to which they belong. Accelerated release on licence purely because of their organisations' behaviour could be rescinded because of 446 their organisations' behaviour. That issue is separate from the normal release of prisoners after their sentences have expired.
§ Mr. IngramI used the phrase "the yo-yo effect" in terms of amendments Nos. 12 and 13, and there is a yo-yo effect between myself and the right hon. Gentleman. I made a comment about the European convention on human rights and the breach that would apply. To try to understand the argument, he should read article 5(4), which deals specifically with the rights of an individual in respect of events outwith his control. Such an individual may have been a supporter of an organisation, or have been the most senior person in it, and he may be subject to accelerated release, but once he is out, he has to be judged on whether he continues to support that organisation.
When we are trying to reintegrate people into a normal and peaceful society, why should such a person be taken back into prison if events take place that are outwith his control and that he does not support, and how would that help what we are seeking in terms of the agreement for which the people of Northern Ireland voted so overwhelmingly?
§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)Does not the point being made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) fall on the ground that an individual who renewed his support for such a terrorist organisation after his release would be guilty of an offence under existing legislation? He could be charged and prosecuted, so the law adequately covers the scenario suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is wasting a lot of the Committee's time.
§ Mr. IngramI hope that my hon. Friend is not saying that I am wasting a lot of the Committee's time. I am genuinely trying to ensure that there is clear understanding of what is entailed, so that there is no misrepresentation outside the House and no attempt to say that the Government are doing something that is against the best interests not only of those who may be released, but of people in the wider community, of whose best interests we must always take full consideration.
My hon. Friend makes the point well. A person may be released because he is a member of an organisation that satisfies the criteria in the Bill, but if it no longer satisfies the criteria and he is found to be supporting it, he will go back inside—he will be recalled. The protection is clearly present.
§ Mr. Peter RobinsonThe Minister said that, while he understood the general principle that I was discussing, the thrust of his opposition was that an individual who had been released may no longer be associated with an organisation; indeed, he may be publicly opposing it. Surely it would be simple, under the clause, for the case to be heard by the commissioners. At least at that point, the police would not have to prove a case against that individual to get him back into gaol. It would be for the commissioners to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to disconnect an individual who had been convicted in respect of terrorist crimes from the organisation of which he had been a part.
§ Mr. IngramI do not want a dialogue to develop between myself and the hon. Gentleman—I have 447 explained the situation. I can understand why people say, "Once a member, always a member. If the organisation breaches the terms of the legislation, everyone should be back inside." I have tried to explain, however, why that is wrong in detail and wrong in terms of the ECHR. There is not much more to be gained from further debate on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. I shall not ask hon. Members to support it.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) again referred to press speculation. We do not respond to press speculation. Any judgments in relation to security issues are based on the best advice received—not on advice from anonymous sources who may or may not be privy to information, and who have spoken to the press and put their own spin on it. Those matters are sensitive and delicate when one is dealing with intelligence information, and it is better to be right than to fly off at a tangent, as so many people do when they read something in the press. It is better to be balanced and responsible when dealing with such issues.
I have no intention of accepting amendments Nos. 12 and 13—we have had that debate—and I have no intention of accepting amendment No. 44. I hope that the hon. Member for Bracknell will withdraw his amendments.
§ Mr. MacKayI beg to ask leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
The First Deputy ChairmanOrder. Amendment No. 13 is grouped with amendment No. 12. However, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who tabled amendment No. 44, can propose that it be put—although there can be no debate on it, because the amendments are grouped together.
§ Rev. Ian PaisleyCan the Committee vote on my amendment?
The First Deputy ChairmanThe hon. Gentleman can have a vote, although I am not inviting him to do so.
§ Mr. MacKayI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The First Deputy ChairmanWe must now deal with amendment No. 44.
Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 4, line 39, at end insert—
'(d) that any organisation which at the time of his release under this Act he supported, but which was not then specified as a terrorist organisation under section 3(8), has not subsequently been specified as such an organisation under that section.'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 280.
449| [Division No. 308] | [8.45 pm] |
| AYES | |
| Casale, Roger | Paisely, Rev Ian |
| Donaldson, Jeffrey | Ross, William (E Lond'y) |
| Forsythe, Clifford | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Hunter, Andrew | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Maclean, Rt Hon David | Mr. William Thompson and |
| Norris, Dan | Mr. Peter Robinson. |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Denham, John |
| Ainger, Nick | Dismore, Andrew |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Donohone, Brian H |
| Alexander, Douglas | Doran, Frank |
| Allan, Richard | Dowd, Jim |
| Allen, Graham | Drew David |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Edwards, Huw |
| Ashton, Joe | Efford, Clive |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Ellman, Mrs Louise |
| Baker, Norman | Fisher, Mark |
| Banks, Tony | Fitzpatrick, Jim |
| Barron, Kevin | Fitzsimons, Lorna |
| Bayley, Hugh | Flynn, Paul |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Foster, Michael J(Worcester) |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Fyfe, Maria |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Galbraith, Sam |
| Bell, Martin (Tatton) | Galloway, George |
| Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) | Gapes, Mike |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | George, Andrew (St Ives) |
| Best, Harold | Gerrard, Neil |
| Betts, Clive | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Blackman, Liz | Godsiff, Roger |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Goggins, Paul |
| Blunkett, Rt Hon David | Gordon, Mrs Eileen |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Gorrie, Donald |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Grant, Bernie |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) |
| Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) | Grogan, John |
| Browne, Desmond | Hain, Peter |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
| Burden, Richard | Hancock, Mike |
| Burgon, Colin | Hanson, David |
| Burnett, John | Harris, Dr Evan |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Healey, John |
| Byers, Stephen | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Hepburn, Stephen |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Heppell, John |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Hesford, Stephen |
| Canavan, Dennis | Hewitt, Ms Patricia |
| Casale, Roger | Home Robertson, John |
| Caton, Martin | Hoon, Geoffrey |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Hope, Phil |
| Chaytor, David | Hopkins, Kelvin |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Howarth, Alan (Newport E) |
| Church, Ms Judith | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Clapham, Michael | Howells, Dr Kim |
| Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Humble, Mrs Joan |
| Clelland, David | Hurst, Alan |
| Coaker, Vernon | Hutton, John |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Cohen, Harry | Ingram, Adam |
| Coleman, Iain | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Colman, Tony | Jamieson, David |
| Connarty, Michael | Jenkins, Brian |
| Cooper, Yvette | Johnson, Miss Melanie |
| Corbett, Robin | (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Cotter, Brian | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Cousins, Jim | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Cox, Tom | keetch, Paul |
| Cranston, Ross | Kemp, Fraser |
| Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) | Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye) |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Cummings, John | Khabra, Piara S |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Dalyell, Tam | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Davey, Edward (Kingston) | Kingham, Ms Tess |
| Davidson, Ian | Laxton, Bob |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Leslie, Christopher |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Levitt, Tom |
| Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly) | Liddell, Mrs Helen |
| Dawson, Hilton | Linton, Martin |
| Livingstone, Ken | Rendel, David |
| Livsey, Richard | Roche, Mrs Barbara |
| Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) | Rooney, Terry |
| Llwyd, Elfyn | Roy, Frank |
| Love, Andrew | Ruane, Chris |
| McAllion, John | Ruddock, Ms Joan |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| McCabe, Steve | Salter, Martin |
| McCafferty, Ms Chris | Sanders, Adrian |
| McCartney, Ian (Makerfield) | Savidge, Malcolm |
| McFall, John | Sawford, Phil |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Mclsaac, Shona | Sheerman, Barry |
| McKenna, Mrs Rosemary | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) |
| McLeish, Henry | Skinner, Dennis |
| Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert | Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| McNulty, Tony | Smith, Miss Geraldine |
| Mactaggart, Fiona | (Morecambe & Lunesdale) |
| McWalter, Tony | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) |
| Mallaber, Judy | Soley, Clive |
| Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Squire, Ms Rachel |
| Martlew, Eric | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| Meale, Alan | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Merron, Gillian | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Miller, Andrew | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Mitchell, Austin | Stott, Roger |
| Moffatt, Laura | Stringer, Graham |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Moore, Michael | Stunell, Andrew |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann |
| Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) | (Dewsbury) |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) |
| Morley, Elliot | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| Morris, Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley) | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie | Timms, stephen |
| Mudie, George | Tipping, Paddy |
| Mullin, Chris | Todd, Mark |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | Touhig, Don |
| Murphy, Paul (Torfaen) | Truswell, Paul |
| Norris, Dan | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Olner, Bill | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| O'Neill, Martin | Tyler, Paul |
| Organ, Mrs Diana | Wallace, James |
| Osborne, Ms Sandra | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Pendry, Tom | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Perham, Ms Linda | Wareing Robert N |
| Pickthall, Colin | Watts, David |
| Pike, Peter L | White, Brian |
| Plaskitt, James | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Pollard, Kerry | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Pond, Chris | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Pope, Greg | Willis, Phil |
| Pound, Stephen | Wills, Michael |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Winnick, David |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Woolas, Phil |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Worthington, Tony |
| Purchase, Ken | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Radice, Giles | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Raynsford, Nick | Janet Anderson and |
| Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) | Mr. Jon Owen Jones. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. IngramI beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 5, leave out line 4 and insert—
'(b) Commissioners shall consider his case.'.450 The amendment is intended to ensure that when the Secretary of State suspends the licence of a prisoner who has been released under the terms of the Bill, the case is automatically referred back to the commissioners. It is then for the commissioners to decide whether the licence conditions have been breached, or are likely to be breached, and whether to confirm or revoke the licence. The amendment is required to avoid any possibility of doubt about the procedure that is to be applied if a licence is suspended.Under the Bill, it is for a prisoner to apply to the commissioners to consider the suspension of his licence. However, it would be open to a prisoner to make no such application. Although that is unlikely, if it were to happen the licence would continue to be suspended and would not be revoked. The amendment would ensure that in such cases the commissioners would automatically consider the case, thus removing any possibility of doubt about the prisoner's position.
§ Mr. William RossThe amendment is remarkable. We are not only letting prisoners out but insisting on shoving them out the door if an excuse can be found to do that. Clause 3(2) states: "The Commissioners shall" and clause 9(2) states that the Secretary of State "may". The amendment seeks to remove "may" and insert "shall". On each occasion the words "may" or "shall" are used to the advantage of the criminal. There is no question about it.
It is astonishing that it is to be open to individuals to go along and ask the commissioners to take another look at their case and that we cannot even trust them to do that. They must love the Maze, or Maghaberry, or Crumlin Road prison so much that they do not want to leave. They must feel at home in prison—perhaps because they can get a free education inside and they are studying for a degree. They do not want to leave, so here we have a situation in which the individual, whether he likes it or not, will have his case reconsidered and, if at all possible, the door will be opened and he will be shoved out. That is a most remarkable state of affairs.
§ 9 pm
§ Mr. ThompsonI, too, find the amendment rather strange. When a prisoner is released, it will be up to the commissioners to review the situation of that prisoner in the light of the knowledge of the Secretary of State. It appears that the commissioners will have the power to second-guess the Secretary of State's decision. However, the Secretary of State might have information of a security or intelligence nature, which it might not be advisable to share with the commissioners. Therefore, it is not necessary for the prisoner to have the review by the commissioners. In addition, will the Minister clarify whether the prisoner will be taken into custody again before the commissioners are allowed to consider the case, or will the commissioners be allowed to consider the case before the prisoner is taken into custody again?
§ Mr. IngramThe amendment is straightforward: it is designed to prevent a situation arising in which the legislation goes into limbo. We are trying to ensure that a flaw within the Bill as it stands is corrected. As I explained, in cases where the Secretary of State suspends the licence of a prisoner released under the legislation, the case will be automatically referred back to the 451 commissioners. That would not happen under the Bill as it stands, even though it was originally intended that the commissioners should decide on the licence conditions.
The way in which the commissioners operate is set out elsewhere in the Bill. The nature of the body is such that it has to satisfy international law and the European convention on human rights that individuals are treated fairly, adequately and equitably in the eyes of the law. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) wants to suspend the law entirely in Northern Ireland, but that is not something that the Government want to do—indeed, no democratic Government could do so. We have to ensure that the law is applied at all times, properly and fairly.
The amendment is a technical amendment, designed to ensure that the legislation does not remain in limbo. The hon. Gentlemen who have spoken are arguing another point, which is unrelated to my opening explanation.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.