HC Deb 17 June 1998 vol 314 cc470-5
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 8, leave out lines 6 and 7.

The Second Deputy Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause stand part.

Government new clause 5—Sentences passed outside Northern Ireland.

Government new schedule 1—Sentences passed outside Northern Ireland.

Mr. Corbyn

I am sorry that it has taken the Committee so long to reach this stage. When I tabled amendment No. 91, I was unaware that the Government were intending to table new clause 5 and, in particular, new schedule 1, which meets many of my concerns. However, it might assist the House if I briefly set out those concerns.

Is it accepted that it is wrong to treat offences committed in Britain as somehow worse than similar offences for which someone was convicted as a result of what happened in Northern Ireland in the past? It is essential that there should be some consistency, which is why I raised this issue in the first place.

The Government new schedule refers to prisoners convicted in Britain and then transferred to Northern Ireland, but there are concerns about how cases involving someone who has been convicted in this country and who is still imprisoned here but who is widely considered to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice will be dealt with.

I cite as an example the case of John Kinsella. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments, but there is a body of opinion that feels that he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice. He has served a considerable proportion of his sentence—indeed, more than a third of it—so, had he been transferred to Northern Ireland, or had he come from Northern Ireland in the first place, his case would have been dealt with within the terms of the Government's proposals.

There also seem to be a disproportionate number of Irish prisoners in Britain who are the victims of miscarriages of justice. The evidence is there, and the Home Office must be well aware of it, because of the number of cases being investigated. One in particular that comes to mind is that of Danny McNamee, who was convicted on very dubious evidence. A raft of information has been handed to the Home Office which suggests that Mr. McNamee is innocent. He has served almost half his sentence, so, again, he ought to come within the ambit of the Bill, especially within the terms of the Government new clause and new schedule. There is widespread concern about the safety of such convictions.

We must address miscarriages of justice as well as the treatment of people who have been convicted where there is no dispute about there having been a miscarriage of justice. There is an undertaking in the Bill that they will be treated differently because of the nature of their offences. The Bill is about looking forward to a more peaceful future in which we recognise the motives of people who have committed offences, but I am concerned about the number of people who are wrongly accused of committing offences which they clearly did not commit, for whom people are prepared to campaign, and who, indeed, attest to their own innocence. We should not forget such people, and I hope that either the Secretary of State or the Minister will reassure me on that point.

Mr. Ingram

I wish to speak against clause 15 stand part and in support of new clause 5 and new schedule 1.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) recognised that his amendment has now been overtaken by the Government new clause and new schedule. He raised several issues which are not covered in the Bill. Any matters relating to alleged miscarriages of justice are matters for the Criminal Cases Review Commission, so there is a mechanism whereby such matters can be fully considered and any miscarriages of justice, if there are any, put right.

Mr. Corbyn

Does the Minister accept that the fact of someone having been imprisoned in England after what he believed to be a miscarriage of justice and serving a longer sentence than he would have served had he been transferred to Northern Ireland would form the basis for a review of that sentence by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, because his treatment here might be deemed detrimental to his interests compared with what would have happened had he been moved to Northern Ireland?

10.30 pm
Mr. Ingram

We are dealing with a very complex matter—the provisions on transferred prisoners. As I said earlier in the debate, I cannot deal now with cases of those who are alleging miscarriages of justice. There is a danger that we are getting into the details of such cases. However, as the matter is complex, 1 shall write to my hon. Friend on it and explain the position. As I told the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), if the Bill contains any specific weaknesses on the matter, we shall attempt to correct them. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that explanation.

Taken together, new clause 5 and new schedule 1 fully and clearly state in the Bill our intention on transferred prisoners. Although it was thought that explanation of our intentions would have to await a draft order, that is no longer the case. The new clause and new schedule are intended to ensure that prisoners who have been transferred to Northern Ireland can be treated as much as possible as if they had been convicted and sentenced in Northern Ireland, and that the same savings and safeguards apply.

Specifically, were the Bill's arrangements to lapse, the new clause and new schedule would ensure that life sentence prisoners who have been given a restricted transfer to Northern Ireland will continue to be dealt with under English or Scottish release arrangements.

I therefore commend the new clause and the new schedule to the Committee.

Mr. William Ross

On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I must protest at the way in which the matter has been handled. The matter of sentences passed outside Northern Ireland was originally dealt with in the Bill in clause 15—"Miscellaneous"—which contained about 26 lines of text. It was then dealt with by new clause 5, which has two lines of text, and then by a new schedule—which appeared only yesterday—that has two full pages of text. It is unreasonable for anyone to say that, at such short notice, we have had time to wade through all the text. The issue is complex, and has many aspects.

If the Government were planning to include the provisions in the Bill, why did they not do so initially, so that we might have considered them—their general principle—in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading? If they had done so, we should have been able last weekend to examine the provisions, and then to reach conclusions on whether we should agree to the new clause and new schedule.

I therefore hope that the provisions will be considered very carefully in the other place, and that any necessary amendment will be made to them. The matter has been dealt with in a completely unsatisfactory manner.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The Bill has been severely guillotined, yet pages—about which we knew nothing when the guillotine was agreed to—are being added to it. The House's business managers saw to it that Northern Ireland Members did not know about the guillotine motion, which was dealt with on a Thursday night. We were never informed about it. One hon. Member was informed about it, but he saw to it that his colleagues would not be so informed. It is in his interest that the Bill is passed.

It is unfair that a Bill that has been so severely guillotined should have pages added to it by the Government, who now say that we should stick to that guillotine. It is completely unfair. The Minister can laugh if he likes but it is surely not parliamentary procedure to have undigested legislation passing through the House of Commons. For the Minister to laugh and say to us, "Yes, that is what you will get," does not bode well for democratic debate in this place. Surely the Government would be keen to declare what they want so that we may understand their policy and have the opportunity to comment on it. In the time that is available to us, it is impossible to comment on those matters.

Mr. Ingram

Perhaps it is worth while explaining the situation. The matters set forth in the new clause and the new schedule were dealt with within the agreement anyway. It had always been our intention to ensure that what was contained within that part of the agreement was fully reflected in the proposed legislation that we are considering. The problem is that it relates to jurisdictions outwith Northern Ireland—namely, England, Wales and Scotland.

These are complex matters in terms of definitions in finding equivalent offences. We sought to ensure that the clarifications were properly defined to satisfy the Law Officers in the jurisdictions of England, Scotland and Wales and that they were before the House of Commons at as early a stage as possible. If those matters had proved so complex that the difficulties could not be properly squared, we may have been dealing with them in the other place. We have tried to bring them forward as early as possible. It has been a question of timing. As I have said, we have been dealing with complex issues.

I apologise if hon. Members think that they have somehow been disadvantaged, but every political party in Northern Ireland was offered the full opportunity to be taken through the Bill in its entirety. If there had been an area of concern—

Mr. Ross

rose—

Mr. Ingram

Hold on. Let me explain.

It was simply a matter of contacting my office. We could have taken hon. Members through any doubts or questions that they may have had about the application of these provisions. As hon. Members know, we have been very open in the way in which we have brought forward this legislation. We have tried to consult and to amend the Bill as it has developed over the weeks.

We had a commitment to try to get the Bill on to the statute book by the end of June. Of course, we shall not achieve that. However, we shall get it on to the statute book as soon as possible. Again, that is set out in the agreement. If hon. Members feel that they have been disadvantaged by the way in which those matters have been handled, I ask them to reflect on the way in which they have approached them. If they had approached my office, we could have taken them through the details of these large amendments.

Mr. Ross

The point is that the new clause and the new schedule were not in the Bill. Even those who went to the Minister asking to be taken through the Bill would not have seen them. The new clause and the new schedule were not ready when the rest of the Bill was being printed. The schedule deals with crimes committed within the United Kingdom. It does not tell us anything about individuals who may be transferred, for instance, from the Irish Republic. Why is that matter not included if it has taken so long to sort out these matters?

Rev. Ian Paisley

My party saw the Minister about the Bill. We did not see a draft of the Bill when we consulted him, and he did not know then what the new schedule would be, or what the part of the Bill would be that is now under discussion. The hon. Gentleman says that he had to wait so that the Law Officers in the other jurisdictions could come to an agreement. We can well accept that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has apologised to the Committee, including the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies.

It would be shabby if controversial legislation were put before the House of Commons in this way over and over again. The Minister has a deep difference with the Northern Ireland Members sitting on the Bench that I occupy, including all the Unionist Members present this evening. Some have been mentioned, but they did not even turn up to the meeting that has been referred to, to put their views. It would be wrong if that were done over and again to the people of Northern Ireland. I accept the Minister's apology. However, I hope that, in the future, we shall have the opportunity at least to read the Bill that we are supposed to discuss in the Chamber.

Mr. Corbyn

I find these arguments slightly amazing. The point of a Committee of the whole House is to allow amendments to be put—the Government can even move amendments; that is not against the rules—and accepted by the Committee. There is nothing extraordinary about that. Therefore, the Democratic Unionists' expressions of amazement are ludicrous—to put it mildly.

I moved amendment No. 91 because I wished to draw attention to particular aspects of the legislation that I thought needed further examination. I am pleased that the Government have tabled new clause 5 and new schedule 1, which go a long towards meeting my concerns, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I appreciated the way that he described his new clause and new schedule as "taking over" my amendment—I hope that that is a sign of my new-found influence over the Government in those matters. I can offer them further advice on other subjects, if they wish it. That is no problem: my door is always open and I can offer advice at any time.

I could draw attention to several other issues, but I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Lord, by straying wide of the clause under consideration. I look forward to receiving the Minister's letter on the subjects that I have raised, which I recognise are very complicated. However, I hope that he recognises also that I have drawn attention to two serious miscarriages of justice—namely, McNamee and John Kinsella—and I hope that that information will be conveyed to both the Home Office and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Miscarriages of justice do no one any good because locking up the wrong person allows a criminal to go free. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 disagreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to