HL Deb 06 July 1998 vol 591 cc1067-84

(" . In this Act, except so far as the context otherwise requires— terrorism" means the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear, and terrorist" means a person who is or has been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of an act of terrorism or in directing, organising or training persons for the purposes of terrorism.").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 18 is quite straightforward and seeks to introduce into the Bill definitions of the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist".

As the Minister stressed on more than one occasion this evening, the Bill is concerned with terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. In two other Acts of Parliament of which mention has been made this evening similar definitions are to be found. In the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, Section 20, "terrorism" is defined in exactly the terms used in the first part of Amendment No. 43. In the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 both "terrorism" and "terrorist" are defined in the terms used in both parts of the amendment.

It seems to me to be sensible that this Parliament should make clear to those who may have to apply the provisions of the Bill when it becomes law that, in using these terms, they mean what was meant by Parliament in the 1989 and 1996 Acts. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward the amendment. I consider that it would be helpful to include within the Bill a definition of "terrorism", which is a term used on a number of occasions. However, the term "terrorist" does not appear in the Bill in the form referred to in the definition and so no amendment is required in that regard. For this reason I intend to bring forward a government amendment at Report stage.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

On the basis of that helpful response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Commencement]:

Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 44:

Page 9, line 32, at end insert ("but no such day may be appointed (other than in respect of this section) until after the release on licence of every member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown serving a sentence of imprisonment in respect of a conviction for murder committed in the course of their duties in Northern Ireland").

The noble Lord said: This amendment, although it is carefully drafted, and I hope sufficiently carefully drafted, to avoid the hazard of turning the Bill into a hybrid Bill, is about Guardsmen Fisher and Wright and the injustice which would be perpetrated were they to be left in prison when terrorists are let out.

There is no doubt at all in my mind about this issue. I accept, of course, that it is well within the bounds of possibility that the conviction of these men was unsafe and that through the efforts of, most notably, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway there may be what one would call a judicial route towards their release and therefore an end to this injustice. But we cannot assume that the conviction was unsafe and we cannot assume that any judicial process will result in their release. However, what is clear is that, whatever the circumstances of their conviction, it would be profoundly unjust were they to be left in prison when serial killers, who in the judgment of many of us, even if not in the judgment of the commissioners, may well be a danger to the public, were to be released.

These young men are extremely unlikely to be a danger to the public. They were not members of a terrorist organisation, whatever may be the view of members of Sinn Fein about the role of the Army in Northern Ireland. They were seeking to do their duty. They may have made a tragic mistake—that is possible—but what is certain is that they did not set out that day to commit murder.

The circumstances of this case are clear enough. The view up until now, perhaps even up until today—perhaps that view is changing today in view of what I understand was said while I was out of the Chamber—which was expressed in the other place on 11th February by Mr. Adam Ingram, the Minister of State, is perfectly clear. It is that the review board had duly considered the case at its meeting on 14th and 15th October 1997 at the five-year stage of the sentence. The confidential recommendation of the board was then referred to the Secretary of State for her personal consideration. Mr. Ingram went on to assure the House that the cases had been the subject of very detailed and thorough consideration by all those involved at the various stages of the review process. No extraneous considerations, political or otherwise, had been permitted to influence the decisions taken. I can give that absolute assurance. That was in the context of the reply which had been given on 3rd November 1997 to my noble friend Lord Westbury by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who stated that, The review board's advice to the Secretary of State in these particular cases is strictly confidential and will not be disclosed. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has decided that the cases of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher should be referred back to the review board in one year's time, i.e. October 1998, when they will have served six years in custody. No date for release has therefore yet been fixed".—[Official Report, 3/11/97; col. WA276.] On various occasions, Ministers have made it perfectly plain that they believed that it would not be proper if these young men served less than six years for the crime of which they had been convicted.

The Government have made it plain that no political or extraneous circumstances will be taken into account in determining their sentences. Therefore, unless the judicial route uncovers circumstances which make it clear that the conviction was unsafe, there can be no possibility of their release in less than six years, for to release these young men earlier in the lack of such considerations would be to bring into play political or extraneous circumstances. The Government have said that they are not willing to do that.

More recently, in exchanges in the other place with the Prime Minister when my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter, the Prime Minister himself made plain that the ground was shifting a little underneath his feet. In fact, he suggested that the reason that there had not been another review of their case was that there had been further judicial proceedings. At that stage, he said that now those proceedings were out of the way their case could be reconsidered and that he would ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to so reconsider.

But on what basis? On the basis of a consideration whether the conviction was safe or unsafe or on some political consideration? Indeed, it was not correct to say that consideration of their cases had been delayed by the application for judicial review which their own lawyers had made. It was quite obvious that if the Secretary of State had considered that five years was a sufficient sentence for these young men they could have been released last October. They were not. She took the view that they should serve at least six years, although she also takes the view that serial killers could be released in two years. This whole matter typifies the injustices which will be perpetrated by this Bill.

My amendment would get the Government off the hook on which they have impaled themselves because if the Committee sees fit to enact it then quite clearly it would—shall I say?—cause some difficulty for the Government, which I understand, in taking the matter back to the other place and asking Scottish Members of Parliament who are Government supporters to vote to keep Fisher and Wright in gaol. It would therefore give the Government the perfect and plausible reason, without any consideration of whether or not the conviction was unsafe and without moving from their position that political considerations should not be taken into account, to say, "We were overwhelmed by the consideration of Parliament and in order that this agreement shall come into effect"—we know of the importance that the Government attach to the belief that this Bill is part of the agreement and that it must be fully brought into effect—"we have to release these two young men". It would be a case of force majeure.

I do not worry in what way they are released. I do not worry if they are released next week on bail, awaiting some other process, judicial or legal, which would release them more permanently on licence in the manner that terrorists have been released. I do not like that. I do not think that they should be released on licence because I do not think that there is any fear that they will reoffend. I think that they should be released clearly, absolutely and without condition. But my purpose is to get them out of prison because nothing less would serve the cause of justice. I hope that this amendment may offer the Government a way out of their difficulties which have perhaps been compounded by the Prime Minister's words more recently in the other place.

I cannot express myself any more clearly than that. I can only hope that the Government will be able to respond. I do not think that any of us believe that these young men should be retained in gaol. I just hope that the Government will indicate tonight that they share that view and that they are looking for a way out of this problem. I offer them one way out. If they have a better way out, I would be very happy indeed to accept it. I beg to move.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My noble friend Lord Tebbit and I share the same aspiration, but we differ fundamentally as to the means by which it should be achieved. It is with the utmost regret that I have to oppose the amendment. My noble friend Lord Tebbit is an old friend for whom I have the greatest respect. He is a man of total integrity whose motives are never to be called in question. However, this amendment proposes to delay release under the Bill (for which eligibility is provided by Clause 3) until all members of our Armed Forces serving a mandatory life sentence for murder of a civilian in the course of duty in Northern Ireland have been released outside and otherwise than the Bill as it stands. Under what mechanism for release? That is not stated in the amendment.

On Second Reading and today, my noble friend Lord Tebbit named Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. No other member of the Armed Forces yet falls within the ambit of the amendment. Release (as proposed by this amendment) is without paragraphs 1 to 3 of page 25 of the Stormont agreement, which is not subject to renegotiation. There is no concept of priority of eligibility for release either under the agreement or the paper used in negotiations to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred this afternoon in the context of Clause 3. I refer to paragraphs 5 and 7 of that paper.

In this and in other contexts the agreement was the linkage of irreconcilable differences placed in juxtaposition to achieve a common purpose and endorsed by the vast majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland, albeit in somewhat unusual circumstances, as my noble friend Lord Tebbit said. The linkage reflected by Clause 3 refers, on the one hand, to the armed soldier on duty on the streets of Northern Ireland who kills a civilian without legal justification—murder—and who must then serve a mandatory life sentence, subject to release by the Secretary of State. The Committee will be aware that in Northern Ireland exceptionally the lesser charge of manslaughter is not available. I know not for what reason. On the other hand, there are those who have killed and maimed on many occasions for diverse sectarian and politically motivated purposes and have either been sentenced to life imprisonment or a term of at least five years based on the gravity of their offences.

There is no doubt that that is unacceptable to the Committee. It is unacceptable to me. But that is not the point. There is an obvious discriminatory disparity in this agreement against our armed soldiers. But that is not to the point. If the Government tamper with Clause 3, which this amendment inevitably involves, their moral authority to foster the peace process will be dissipated. To what constructive end should the Committee protest, object or support this amendment? Is not the only wise, realistic course to support the common purpose of the agreement in the hope of peace in the Province?

As to the guardsmen, it is not in their interests that they should be taken hostage and used as pawns to claim priority as to eligibility for release as proposed by the amendment. On 23rd June your Lordships concluded that their conviction had been a grave miscarriage of justice and that they should be released at once by the Secretary of State on licence, subject to recall under the delegated remit of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy pending judicial resolution of the rectitude of their conviction. Therefore, those guardsmen are in a wholly distinct category from all others to whom Clause 3 applies, many of whom, as I have said, have killed or maimed for diverse politically motivated purposes, none of whom claims any challenge to the rectitude of their convictions.

In the wake of 23rd June, General Sir David Scott-Barrett and General Naylor, on behalf of the release group, made arrangements for those men to be visited so that all appropriate steps may be taken, with their formal authority, to set aside their convictions. In that context I must again thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his good offices. He sent all my papers to the commission so as to achieve priority—a truly noble gesture across the Floor of this Chamber.

As regards release, as they remain in custody, a Motion has been tabled to resolve that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, who retains overall dispensation of the prerogative, to seek immediate release, having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the miscarriage of justice and the want of any other mechanism to afford immediate release. With respect to my noble friend, it is wholly inappropriate that those guardsmen should in any way be associated with this amendment or with any kind of political activity which seeks to exert any pressure on the Government.

On the basis of reasoned persuasion, it is the hope that Members of this place may support this Motion for an humble Address, soon, I am informed by the Government Chief Whip, to be debated, although a date has not been fixed. If carried it can but advance the prospect for immediate release.

I was not present in the Chamber, but my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew has told me about the present position, and indeed I am grateful. But a decision in three to four weeks—a decision taken on these flawed findings of fact that supported conviction, the miscarriage of justice, the zenith of culpability, which have thwarted release up to now by my noble and learned friend, and by all Secretaries of State, and will continue no doubt to thwart release. I am grateful for what I am given, but it affords me no comfort.

Beyond that there is again the expectation of relief in some four months' time, again on those flawed findings of fact which bedevil the prospect of release. Under this Bill, there is the mechanism for release—the commissioners and this and that, and one thing and another—but does one really imagine that these men could ever be released under about nine or 12 months?

What I seek, by respectful request, is a resolution of Members of this place to seek to present an humble Address to Her Majesty to exercise the prerogative for immediate release, and in no circumstances should that be in any way affected or tainted by politics or by association with this amendment. Such is not the intention of my noble friend, whose intentions and motives are never to be criticised, but that I fear is the result, and it is a result which I oppose on behalf of the guardsmen.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, went to a great deal of trouble and exercised a great deal of patience to get this amendment on the Marshalled List. As I am sure noble Lords appreciate, and as the noble Lord said in introducing the amendment, he is not seeking to employ a political manoeuvre to have released these two honourable young men. I made a modest contribution to the debate a few weeks ago in this House when their plight was debated. I did not hear one voice raised against them. I understood that all present were wholeheartedly in favour of the principles which have just been put forward, and were expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, earlier.

Since the amendment refers to the naval, military or air forces of the Crown, I wish to pay tribute to them—I do not think that it is out of order—for their devotion to duty and the courage and patience they have shown over these many decades. I do not exclude my old regiment which has been there almost from the beginning. I know that I speak for all the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland of whatever faith in paying that tribute to the Queen's forces in Northern Ireland for all that they have done and are doing—and, God help them, may still be required to do.

Lord Renwick of Clifton

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has raised the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright in the debate. I wish to assure the noble Lord that many of us on this side of the Chamber feel just as strongly as he does that there has been, and is, a miscarriage of justice in this case.

The question is how it is to be dealt with. There are now two ways in which to proceed. One is by the process of judicial review. Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I should greatly prefer these cases to be dealt with by that process rather than by the process envisaged in the Bill which relates to terrorist offences. We feel as strongly as does the noble Lord that the security forces in Northern Ireland are called upon to perform an almost impossible task.

I should like to suggest to the noble Lord and to the Committee that there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with this case. I believe that the right way to proceed is for the Minister, as I hope he will, to take back to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the strongly held view of Members on all sides of this Committee that this case should be dealt with, and expeditiously, and that these guardsmen should be released.

I believe that the wrong way to deal with it is by an amendment to the Bill. The Bill gives effect to the agreement. I honestly believe that I am speaking at least in part on behalf of Baroness Ewart-Biggs, who used to sit on these Benches. She herself a victim of terrorism and longed to see the day when an agreement of this kind was possible to give new hope to the people of Northern Ireland. She would not want to see the Bill amended and sent back to another place in a form which could make it more difficult to achieve that essential goal.

On that basis, I hope that the Committee will join in expressing the view that the guardsmen should be released, that this should be a case for judicial review, but that they will not support the Bill being amended tonight.

Viscount Brookeborough

I will support the amendment if necessary. I have not spoken on this matter before. The noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, suggested a judicial review. I speak as a lay person but, if that is to happen, why can they not be released pending that judicial review?

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I rise only to correct the noble Viscount. It is not judicial review. The way that it is done is that authority is given so that application is made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission—and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already sent my papers there to achieve priority. The commission then sends the application to the Court of Appeal and the court of appeal either quashes the conviction, orders a retrial or refuses the application. That is the position.

Viscount Brookeborough

I thank the noble Lord for putting me right.

I will say a few words about it as a lay person. If there has not been political influence in keeping the two guardsmen where they are, then there has definitely been political inactivity in doing anything about it. We know from the size of the majority that the Government have that it is possible for them to do anything if they put their minds to it.

The Government shy away from many of our amendments to the Bill which are designed to tighten up the legislation on terrorists and their release. The Government know that there is much unease felt by everybody about the release of prisoners—except by those connected with the terrorist parties. They seem to be overjoyed. Yet the one thing we cannot do is accelerate the release of two soldiers. They are there not because they choose to be; they are there because of the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland, let alone the remainder of the United Kingdom, feel that this case should be dealt with promptly.

If this amendment is the wrong way of doing it, I know that everyone would plead for some fast action rather than, as they see it, more delaying tactics until the Government feel that things are safer in Northern Ireland. I am not accusing them of doing that but that is the way it is perceived outside. It may not be fair but perceptions are all-important in Northern Ireland. People on both sides of the political divide in Northern Ireland see no threat to the political process, to the peace process or to the present situation at all in doing something for these two guardsmen now.

Earl Attlee

I have one question for the Minister. Before asking it, I will remind him that I do have an interest to declare. As a serving officer in the TA, I have three or four regular soldiers under my command.

Will the Minister tell the House if he believes it reasonable for Guardsmen Fisher and Wright to continue to be held in custody whilst convicted terrorists are released?

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that this must be dealt with promptly. I was very heartened by the announcement that the Minister made in response to the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, earlier in the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit was not with us, as he acknowledged.

I was heartened because it indicated that the Government have now taken on board the urgency with which this case is viewed on all sides of the House. It is notable that in his statement he said that the Secretary of State would be taking into account the opinions of your Lordships, which have again been expressed very forcibly this evening.

However, I do not know whether I am alone in feeling unease about the equivalence implicit in the amendment we are now discussing between disciplined soldiers of the Armed Forces upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland and terrorists, whom we all condemn. I find some unease in that equivalence. I understand the motives behind this amendment in the sense that it is a last resort, but I should rather find a better resort than that envisaged in the amendment.

11 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

My noble friend Lord Tebbit has once again raised a most important point which, as all Members of the Committee will know, has attracted great attention in your Lordships' House, in the Armed Forces in particular and well outside either of those august bodies all over the United Kingdom.

I noted what the Minister said earlier in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and at this stage I want to say only that this is not a matter which will go away. It is a matter to which we shall return again and again. Once again this evening, as before, Members on all sides of the Committee have wanted to see the release of those men.

There is no doubt that this Bill changes the situation quite radically from what it was last autumn when the last decision was taken. I believe also that the most satisfactory way for the men to be released would be through a judicial process which cleared them of the murder charge, as opposed to just letting them out of prison, which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is pursuing. As he said, we shall shortly have an opportunity to discuss that route.

But it is not the only route by which the end we all seek can be achieved. On previous occasions the Minister has suggested that this Bill may be a route through which it is achieved. The statement which the Minister made earlier seemed to suggest another, although I did not sense quite as much urgency in the way he expressed the matter as this Chamber feels on that matter.

I cannot judge which is likely to prove the quicker of the various routes on offer, but it is clear what the Committee wishes to be achieved. Meanwhile, I hope the Government will pay careful attention to what was said by my noble friend Lord Tebbit.

Lord Dubs

Perhaps the most helpful procedure to follow is for me to explain what is the situation as regards the guardsmen and then deal later with the amendments. I understand the reasons for the amendment, and I am aware of the strength of feeling in this Chamber, reflected today and on the several previous occasions when we have debated the matter.

Although some noble Lords may have been present when I made my earlier comment, it is only fair to those who were not present to repeat what I said in answer to a question by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, two or three hours ago. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing this case in the light of correspondence from the guardsmen's solicitors. She received the papers today and will be considering those papers as soon as may be during the next few weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be aware that the papers in such cases are extensive, but they must be given full and detailed consideration. The Secretary of State will consider the court papers, the previous advice from the Life Sentence Review Board, her own previous decisions and the various judicial review judgments. She will take account also of the many representations that she has received regarding the case, many of which are from noble Lords who are here today.

As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will know, the Secretary of State cannot prejudge any decision she may make as a consequence of that further review, but when a decision has been made she will make it known. That was what I said in reply to a question raised on an earlier amendment. That is one avenue forward for the two guardsmen.

An alternative avenue, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred, concerned the Criminal Cases Review Commission. That has nothing whatever to do with the Secretary of State and is concerned with the safety of the previous conviction and the question of a possible miscarriage of justice. During an earlier debate a few weeks ago, I offered to send various papers that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, had allowed me to see, together with others, to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The noble Lord agreed that I should do so; and, indeed, I have.

The third possibility is simply that, if the Bill becomes law in its present form, clearly the guardsmen, having committed scheduled offences—not because they are terrorists, but because they have committed offences which are defined as "scheduled offences"—would also be eligible to have their cases for release considered by the commissioners once they had been appointed under the legislation. I do not know which of those methods is the more likely. The guardsmen would certainly have to apply to the commissioners after the latter's appointment, but the Secretary of State is already considering the matter in the terms which I have described.

All I have said indicates that the Government are very sensitive to the views which have been expressed tonight. Clearly the Secretary of State's wish to look at the papers again, and her decision to start to do so today, is an indication of her desire, as it were, to reflect the views which have been expressed in this Chamber on a number of occasions. However, I cannot go any further in that respect.

I turn now to the amendment. I understand the reasons behind it but I cannot accept it. The Good Friday Agreement contains no such requirement and to impose such a requirement at this time would be not just to depart from its terms but, frankly, to drive a coach and horses—

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Before the Minister continues, perhaps I may point out that there are two further avenues available. There are the general release powers of the Secretary of State after consultation with the trial judge and the Court of Appeal. That is the fourth avenue and the fifth, as the noble Lord conceded on 23rd June, is the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in truly exceptional circumstances where no other mechanism is available to afford immediate release. Therefore, there are five avenues. It is the fifth that I fight for; indeed, I have always done so.

Lord Dubs

The noble Lord is right to say that there are in fact five different avenues which are open to the two guardsmen.

I was saying that the Good Friday Agreement contains no such requirement as that set out in the noble Lord's amendment. I contend that, if this Chamber were to pass the amendment, it would in fact drive a coach and horses through the agreement. I understand the noble Lord's motives, but I am disappointed that he has decided to make the release of individual prisoners an issue in this way. Indeed, it can only be a political issue because of the way that he has put forward the argument.

As I said earlier, there are well-established procedures under which life sentence cases are considered. Those arrangements have been applied in the case of these prisoners. Account has also been taken of the circumstances in which their offences were committed. While many noble and gallant Lords have made representations regarding the consideration of these cases, the argument has not been that different rules should apply. However, the procedures certainly mean that individual circumstances can be taken into consideration. That is what the Secretary of State is doing in looking again at the cases.

It would not be appropriate to pass the amendment. Indeed, I suggest that it would not be in the interests of the guardsmen to do so. I believe that it would take the whole issue which this Chamber has discussed on numerous occasions into the realm of political controversy, which would hardly be helpful to them. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Tebbit

I just wonder what those two guardsmen would have felt had they heard the Minister say that it would not be in their interests for this amendment to be carried because it would take them into the realm of politics. I believe that the Minister is living in a different world. Those guardsmen want to get out of prison and be reunited with their loved ones. If that comes as a result of politics, I fancy that their view would be, "Well, that's the way it is", not that they would be upset if the Committee should enact this amendment, and that in consequence the doors of their prison would be opened and they would be released. Surely they would not hide at the back of their cells saying, "No, we cannot accept this freedom, it is so embarrassing for us". Of course they would not, and that is an extraordinarily weak argument.

I do not care how these men are released. I do not believe they care how they are released. In moving this amendment, and in all that I have said about them, I am not looking for honorary membership of the Caledonian Club or anything of that kind. I am looking simply for justice for these men. Had I and others not raised this matter, particularly on the Second Reading of this Bill, would the noble Lord have made the statement which he did today about these young men, or would it have been left just to drift on with them in prison? I have to ask whether the Government are beginning to shift a little from the position which they had taken up. If they are beginning to shift a little, are they beginning to shift under pressure, and would they have shifted had that pressure not been applied?

The Minister observed that this amendment was outside the terms of the agreement. So we are back again to this wonderful agreement from which not only may nothing be taken away but to which nothing may be added. I should remind the Committee that the representatives of Fisher and Wright were not invited to the talks from which this agreement sprang. There were no representatives at the talks of the Army or of their regiment, no one to speak for the soldiers. There were only people to speak for the terrorists and the democratic parties. We have to speak for them now. There is nothing in the agreement which says that these men should not be released. This amendment does not in any way affect the terms of the agreement. It would not delay the passage of the Bill. It would not delay its coming into effect, not by a single day, because it is within the power of the Secretary of State to release these young men. Of course if we were to enact this amendment tonight, or on Report, there would be great pressure on the Government to find a way out of the problem.

Let me again read to the Committee a paragraph from the letter of 2nd December from the Minister of State, Mr. Ingram, to my honourable friend Mr. Michael Trend, the Member of Parliament for Windsor. The concluding paragraph states: It is important to bear in mind that the cases of the Guardsmen were considered by the Life Sentence Review Board significantly earlier than usual in life sentence cases in Northern Ireland. Normally cases are considered for the first time when prisoners have served 10 years. This is within the context that the average period served against a life sentence in Northern Ireland is approximately 15 years' imprisonment. The Guardsmen were considered for the first time when they had served only 5 years in custody. I hope that you find this information helpful". There is nothing wrong with hoping, is there?

That was the position of the Government last December. I understand that now the position is changing. I do not know why. Is it changing because they have been impressed by the material passed to them in the past few days by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway; or is it that they are impressed by the fact that people are beginning more and more to see that a fundamental injustice is being perpetrated by the Bill as presently drafted? I do not know which it is, but I have a fair suspicion.

I say to my noble friend Lord Campbell and others that politics is a pretty dodgy and unpredictable trade. All of us who have been in it for many years know that. But it is nowhere near as unpredictable and dodgy as the law. That is the implication of what has been said this evening. It has been said by my noble friend that he believes that these men are in gaol not because of politics but because the law went wrong.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Well, it did.

Lord Tebbit

My noble friend says that it did. I am not able to judge that matter. I was not in the court. I did not hear the evidence. I do not know what happened. But what I do know is that almost all of us are convinced that, even if these men were guilty of the crime of which they were accused and convicted, in the light of the release of serial killers—terrorists—it is only just that they should be released. That is a political consideration. But clearly it is one that most noble Lords believe is correct.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I apologise for having spoken from a sedentary position. Yes, the law did go wrong. And your Lordships' House unanimously concluded, on 23rd June, that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice and that the judicial findings which supported conviction were fundamentally flawed on the affidavit evidence placed in the Library of the House. The law got it wrong, full-stop.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Tebbit

The argument could not be made better. I understand that Parliament is the highest court in the land—except, of course, Brussels; but let us not go down the road of that argument this evening. I do not want to lose any more friends than I have lost already—or perhaps I might make a few. If my noble friend is right, if that is the conclusion that has been reached, why are these men still in prison? There is no need for this amendment once these men are out. Let them be out of prison and the amendment will go away.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, suggested that he was horrified by my action in bringing some air of equivalence between these young men and the terrorists. How strange. I did not hear him express his horror when the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested that they might apply for their release under the provisions of the Bill as though they were terrorists. At Second Reading, the noble Lord indeed said that they could apply under the terms of the Bill. That is equivalence if ever I heard it.

Lord Dubs

The noble Lord knows that I said then, and I re-stated today, that because they were convicted of scheduled offences they would come under the scope of the Bill. I made that point on an earlier occasion in this House when I was asked whether they would be worse off as a result of the Bill than they would otherwise be. I made it clear that they would not be worse off.

Lord Tebbit

I understand that. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, should not be too touchy. I do not wish to be offensive towards him. He was not the target of my remarks. But the fact is that the noble Lord made it perfectly plain that there is equivalence in the Bill: that both the guardsmen and the terrorists were guilty of scheduled offences and the guardsmen could take advantage of the Bill in order to be released. I am merely making sure that they will be released under the provisions of the Bill by insisting that no one else is released before they are.

I entirely accept that the Government have now shifted radically from the view, expressed not many months ago, that six years was too little for these men to the view that they should be let out, as I understand it, either by a judicial process or by a political process. I repeat that I do not care which it is. However, I know that the judicial process is uncertain and that, once the Bill has passed through this House, we shall have no leverage to insist that the men be released. Until the Bill goes through this House, we have some leverage. I do not propose to relent from my determination that that leverage should be used.

Tonight is not the occasion to take that decision, but we shall come back to this matter on Report, when noble Lords throughout the House will have had ample time to consider the issues and when there will have been further time for the Secretary of State to read these papers—of course, not hurriedly; of course, very carefully; but perhaps with a sense that time is not necessarily on her side. If I correctly detect the mood of this Chamber and of a number of noble Members to whom I have spoken, it is far from impossible that this amendment should be carried on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Commissioners]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 45:

Page 10, line 3, at end insert—

("Chairman

A1. The Secretary of State shall appoint a chairman, or joint chairmen, from among the Commissioners.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 46:

Page 10, line 28, after ("chairman") insert ("(or joint chairmen)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 47:

Page 10, line 35, leave out ("with the second") and insert ("on").

The noble Lord said: The amendment sounds a little complicated but is in fact an extremely simple amendment which refers to the date of the first annual report of the commissioners. The expectation is that the first commissioners will be appointed soon after the Bill comes into force. Clearly, there will be intense interest in their work. As the Bill stands, no annual report is proposed until some time after 31st March 2000. The paper says that the board of commissioners is expected to have completed its assessments by the end of June 1999. By that time, if all goes well, the commissioners' work will be almost over. It seems right, therefore, that the first annual report should be on 31st March next year and not postponed until the year 2000. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.

Lord Holme of Chelitenham

I rise to support this amendment. I am amazed that the Treasury let the Government get away without having financial costs reported annually forthwith.

Lord Dubs

I hear the arguments put forward. Of course there will be interest in the work of the commissioners and it would be helpful if the publication date of the first report was earlier. For that reason the Government accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Commissioners' Procedure]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 48:

Page 11, line 17, at end insert— ("(b) confer functions on the chairman (or on joint chairmen, jointly or concurrently).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 11, line 25, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: With regard to the last amendment, I should like to say thank you. With regard to this amendment, this part of the Bill is concerned with the order-making powers of the Secretary of State and this particular bit gives the Secretary of State power to lay down that prisoners cannot represent prisoners in matters concerning the Bill.

It seems to me wholly wise that prisoners should not represent other prisoners in their dealings with the board and with the authorities. That is why I do not want to see this left as a question of "may"—as a power which the Secretary of State may or may not use. That leaves the Secretary of State open to political lobbying and to the expectation of lobbying about it. Given the devious nature of negotiations with terrorist authorities—of which some of us have had experience—this sort of thing can easily be used as some sort of bargaining counter. It is much better to settle the matter now. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

This amendment relates to the rules of procedure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State may make. Those rules are still in preparation.

I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. At the same time, the circumstances in Northern Ireland are such that in some cases a prisoner may wish to be represented by someone he considers to be a colleague. For that reason the provision was intended to allow the Secretary of State to make rules that would prevent such representation but which did not require her to do so.

I can give an undertaking to the Committee that, if the rules do not prevent a prisoner being represented by another prisoner, the intention would be to require that the prisoner had the agreement of the commissioners that he might be so represented. We consider that if that course were to taken it would provide the necessary safeguard. For those reasons I believe that the amendment is not necessary and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I am not sure that I entirely accept that the amendment is not necessary because the Minister used the word "if" in the middle of all that. Nevertheless, I shall take time to consider what he said and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 50:

Page 11, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 50 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 51.

The purpose of this amendment is illustrated by this weekend. If commissioners make a decision in Northern Ireland, whichever way they make it—I do not question the decision—the chances are that half the Province or a hefty percentage of it, will be upset by it. If a decision has to be made as to the order of applications, the commissioners will be put in the same situation as were the commissioners of parades this weekend. If they are left to deal with them in order of receipt, that would be fairer and lead to fewer problems.

I need not extend my arguments further as the Minister used them at the opening of this Committee stage to move the amendment for a joint chairman on the basis that in presenting to Northern Ireland it is better that we have a situation where there is seen to be fairness and understanding rather than argument at the point of decision. I am sure that those arguments apply as much to the amendment about joint chairmen as to moving that Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 mean that decisions are made according to the Bill and not the emotions of the moment. I beg to move.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

Despite the lateness of the hour, I rise to support the amendment. I do not know in what other order the applications could be treated which would produce an impression of fairness. This is an acutely sensitive matter, as we have discussed all through the evening, in which sensibilities will be quivering and people will be waiting to see whether one community is favoured over the other and whether particular prisoners are favoured over others. I recommend to the Government that they think seriously about the amendment as being the best way to demonstrate that there is no fix and that this is being done properly and in sequence.

Viscount Brookeborough

I rise to support the amendment because I believe that it is there for the protection of the commissioners. I am sure that not many people envy the job of the parades commissioners. Neither will they probably do so in the case of these commissioners. They should have all the protection possible by our making the decisions here within which they work.

Lord Dubs

The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, has identified an important part of the work of the commissioners; that is, the management of the process of considering applications. The Government expect that the commissioners are likely to receive in excess of 400 applications shortly after the Bill comes into force. Those applications are likely to be received over a relatively short period of time but it will take time to consider each application separately. As such, it will be important that the applications are dealt with in a coherent manner by the commissioners to ensure that prisoners are dealt with fairly.

While the commissioners may wish to take account of when an application is received, they may also decide to take account of matters such as when the prisoner would be released if he received a declaration. The Government would not want to prevent the commissioners from making such provision and so cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It would mean, in effect, that almost the random factor of when applications are received in the post would determine when they had to be decided. Clearly, if the commissioners believe that some prisoners would be released quickly because they had reached that point in their eligibility while others would not, it would surely make sense to have a system of priority rather than simply to deal with them in the order in which they are received. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

I thank the Minister for his answer. At this stage in the evening I will not pursue the amendment. However, I find his answer unsatisfactory because unless this decision-making has an openness and transparency we will head for further problems and further disputes, as we saw this weekend. I shall withdraw the amendment but I wish to return to the matter at Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.