Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill

HL Deb 06 July 1998 vol 591 cc995-1025

5.28 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 3.

Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 3, leave out ("four") and insert ("five").

The noble Lord said: After that interlude on a highly complex subject, I assure the Committee that there is nothing particularly complex about this group of amendments. Amendment No. 8 is the effective amendment, while Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are merely consequential.

I believe that there is widespread concern, except in terrorist circles, that there has been persistent and consistent backsliding by both this Government and their predecessors on what was once called the surrender of arms and is now called decommissioning. Once—it now seems so long ago—there would be no talks with the mouthpieces of terrorism without the permanent renunciation of violence and indeed a surrender of arms. That was in a bygone age when Front Bench politicians made brave speeches about there being no concessions to violence and when paramilitaries, as they were to become, were known as common criminals or terrorists.

Now we recognise that those who kill for politics or out of prejudice are criminals of a special class who deserve specially soft treatment. This Bill is the last occasion on which we have any leverage at all before we make that concession to those who believe that violence is the appropriate political response to difficulties. The amendment would put some small obligation upon those special category political criminals.

Perhaps I may take a moment or two to read to the Committee a Written Answer to a Question which I tabled on 21st May. I asked Her Majesty's Government, their latest assessment of the likelihood of the surrender of terrorist arms in Northern Ireland". I should have thought that there would be a pretty short reply to that but, as ever, when the short reply would be embarrassing, one gets quite a long reply—I have been a Minister myself! The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, replied: All the parties supporting the agreement of 10 April are committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They have also confirmed their intention to work with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to achieve decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement of the agreement in referendums. The agreement—if endorsed at referendum—must be implemented in all its parts. In his speech in Belfast on 14 May, the Prime Minister clarified the factors that would be taken into account in judging whether the terms and spirit of the agreement were being met. These factors include, 'full co-operation with the Independent Commission on Decomissioning, to implement the provisions of the Agreement' and the Prime Minister undertook that this will be enshrined in forthcoming legislation".—[Official Report, 21/5/98; col. WA 199.] I should have liked to enshrine those precise words in my amendment, but that was technically slightly more difficult than I could cope with, and the nearest that I could get are the words of Amendment No. 8, in which I laid down a fifth condition (above the four in the Bill) relating to the release of a prisoner. The fifth condition is that that person is, co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in implementing the Decommissioning section of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883". That is as close as I could get technically to the precise words of the Prime Minister, but it is certainly the spirit of his words.

I hope that Ministers and other noble Lords will agree that it is nothing less than common sense and justice that, before a prisoner is finally approved for release on licence, he should have done all that he could to secure the decommissioning of arms. A prisoner may know where arms are hidden. He may have access, through his continuing links with the IRA, the UVF or any other terrorist organisation, to information by which the security forces might have access to those arms. He may have friends who can help. It seems to me that before he is released he should do everything in his power to secure the decommissioning of arms. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I am happy to add my support to these amendments because they are designed to assist the commission in supplying what I think could be called "greater clarification" of the position, mindset and status of a prisoner applying for release. Without the amendment, the conditions are so vague as to be almost useless to the commission. The second condition, is, that the prisoner is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation". But who decides that? Is there to be a mere verbal assurance from the prisoner? Will the commission ignore the verifiable fact that the prisoner, on his admission to prison, had insisted on being housed in the prison block under the control of a given terrorist organisation? I know that it may seem curious that a prisoner becoming a guest in the Maze Prison can dictate to the governor which block he wishes to be in so that not only can he chum up with his comrades, but, as was said earlier, he can receive instruction from the more experienced godfathers.

The third condition is that he would not be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or to become involved in or connected with terrorism. In the light of what I have just said about choice of residence in the Maze Prison, we must ask of what value are the words, "would not be likely". Surely the new, modest condition which has been proposed is essential if the whole release scheme is not to become the object of ridicule.

Lord Renwick of Clifton

I have the highest regard for the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Molyneaux, but I must appeal to the Committee not to support this amendment. We all have strong feelings about aspects of this Bill. As others have said, there will be no early release for the victims of terrorism. Like many others in this House, I have spent a large part of my professional life fighting against those who committed these horrendous crimes, but in relation to this amendment, surely we have to keep in mind the purpose of this Bill, which is to give effect to an agreement upon which the future of Northern Ireland will depend and which, if successful, should help to ensure that there are no more victims of terrorism.

The fundamental consideration is the principle of consent—and that has been fully protected. The other fundamental issue is not decommissioning but a permanent end to violence. Decommissioning is part of that, but it is not the only part. The Government have to make a judgment as to the quality and permanence of the ceasefire in a process which, as the Prime Minister said, will necessarily be more rigorous over time. The 1995 Act on the early release of prisoners, which was sponsored, I believe, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, received bipartisan support. This is not an amnesty, and it is also deserving of general support. All sorts of conditions are imposed: an application can be refused; a licence can be revoked; the entire process can be suspended—and no doubt will be—if there is a return to violence.

Given the terms of Clause 3(9)(d) of the Bill, the amendment is superfluous. Clause 3(9) states: In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation"— not a person, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested— (d) is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act". The issue is covered to the full extent that it reasonably can be by that provision. I firmly believe that the cause of peace in Northern Ireland will not be helped by amending the Bill today and I hope that the Committee will not support the amendment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I rise briefly to oppose the amendment. The Stormont agreement is not subject to renegotiation. It was no more or less than a linkage between irreconcilable opposites placed in juxtaposition to achieve a common purpose. It was a desperate, but fragile, mutual expression of hope, endorsed by the vast majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland. That linkage reflected an understanding which is not found in the paper in the Library to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. This linkage in no way embraced the position of decommissioning. That was put aside obviously for the purpose of serving the common end, which is something akin to an oxymoron. To try to introduce it at this stage when there is no reference to it in the agreement at paragraphs 1 to 3 on page 25, or in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the paper in the Library, places the Government in an all but impossible position if they accept it. For that reason, and in furtherance of the peace process, I oppose the amendment.

Viscount Brookeborough

I cannot say whether this amendment alters the agreement. However, I support the intention behind it. Its intention is to provide the people of Northern Ireland with some tangible evidence that these terrorists will become reformed. When we ask for this evidence we are told that a prisoner must declare that he is not the supporter of a terrorist organisation. On a purely practical point, he will leave his cell, which is located in a terrorist block, and declare in an interview that he no longer supports his cell mates. Presumably, the decision as to his release will not be taken while he is in the interview. What happens to him? Does he return to his cell where others ask him where he has been, or will there be a cooling off area in which all of these reformed terrorists wait their time? A practical problem arises should an individual declare that he no longer supports a terrorist organisation.

The other matter that is put forward by way of reassurance is that the licence can be revoked if the individual commits another terrorist crime. However, the licence can be revoked only if he is caught and convicted of being a terrorist. I do not believe that the point about release on licence is as reassuring as it seems. If he commits an offence he must still be caught in order to reconvict him or revoke the licence. I support this amendment in an attempt to tighten up the regulation of this matter.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Sheppard of Liverpool

I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to be present in the Chamber at Second Reading. However, I read the Official Report of that debate and found it intensely moving. Many noble Lords who contributed had to wrestle over bitter years with the framing of policies with no simple right course of action. Many have had close experience of the suffering of victims. We have to ask what signal we will send out if the Committee agrees to this amendment which seeks to change the agreement, sensitively balanced as it is; for in it there is not a link between the release of prisoners and the decommissioning of weapons. It is organisations that can make that commitment, whereas the point just made makes it extremely difficult for an individual to do just that.

This debate takes place in Westminster. The place in which we debate these matters influences the way we speak and think. If we were bringing a proposal to the conference to try to produce an agreement, this could well be part of what your Lordships might want to do. But the agreement that has been reached is an honest attempt to chisel a structure that will be respected by all sides in the community. If we made these changes, what message would that send to the people of east Belfast or the Bogside? Very importantly, what signal will it send to those Unionists who have committed themselves to making the assembly and the agreement work?

On a number of occasions I had the privilege of visiting Northern Ireland together with my friend Archbishop Derek Warlock, often with Free Church leaders from Liverpool. We listened to people from different sides of the religious divide and were very conscious of their closeness to the victims of brutal killings at funeral after funeral. Often they visited victims from other communities. Yet one was conscious of their very firm commitment to reconciliation.

I use "reconciliation" in a quite different context. Derek Warlock and I made a three-week visit to South Africa in 1989, at the invitation of the two archbishops of Cape Town, when the state of emergency was still in force. I used the word "reconciliation" at a meeting with students in Cape Town. They angrily dismissed that word as being soft. I believed that they were wrong. With enormous courage South Africa has appointed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I believe that the way it has worked has demonstrated that reconciliation is not a soft word. It does not imply that crimes do not matter. Reconciliation is very costly. It does not mean appeasement. But it means that each side may have to give up something that it would have wanted to keep.

I have been reading an assessment of the commission's work written by Professor Hugh Corder of the University of Cape Town. He says that the commission has been the medium through which the chasm dividing the life experiences of white and black South Africans can begin to be understood and narrowed. He concludes: What it has done, in my view, is to [break] certain preconceptions, countered prejudices and fought for the permanent installation in public and communal life in South Africa of humility, humanity and forgiveness as the essential features of a workable future". Those are not soft words in that context or in the context of Ireland; they are very costly.

I do not believe that Northern Ireland is yet ready for a truth and reconciliation commission. No amnesty is being granted. As the Minister has made clear, prisoners are released on licence which can be revoked. But in Northern Ireland reconciliation needs to be worked for no less. The Good Friday Agreement puts in place a structure that must not be weakened. On it must be placed the costly process of healing relationships across communities. Victims and their families need to feel safe if they commit themselves to this reconciliation. Protagonists on all sides need to be drawn into it. There are no modern examples of a peace process of which the release of prisoners has not been a major part of the agreement. For example, over 2,000 Palestinians were released when Israel reached its agreement with Mr. Arafat. There can be no peace and reconciliation without a principled compromise.

I hope that the Committee will forgive me if what I am about to say has already been referred to. I could not see it in the Second Reading debate. I believe that it is worth referring to the comments of Nelson Mandela about Ireland. He said that as long as there were men and women on all sides who were able to rise above feelings for revenge, who could put the future of their children first and put terrible episodes behind them in order to move on, this process could work, as his eventually did. It would take a long time and there would be many disappointments but it could be done if the will was unshakeable.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, but I am not sure that I agree—I recognise and urge the need for compromise which leads to reconciliation—with him that the day will ever come when the model of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission will make a useful contribution in Northern Ireland. I accept the burden of his sentiments, and I am glad that he said what he did.

I respect the motives behind the amendment, and I understand the reasoning that leads to it. I want briefly to challenge the consequences. I can be brief because the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, said very much what I was going to say. First, there is a problem with the amendment, which I think is more than technical. It deals with persons rather than organisations—a point made also by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.

It is difficult for prisoners to be capable of co-operating with the decommissioning commission. It is possible that some may be, but many will not. After all, most weapons are held centrally and controlled by quartermasters. The notion of individuals co-operating with the disarmament commission is a difficult one with which to deal. However, that is not my main objection to the amendment, which is that it undoubtedly tries to move on beyond the Good Friday Agreement.

An amendment was moved in another place which tried to make the connection directly between decommissioning and prisoner release. It was defeated. Indeed, Mr. David Trimble said that for him it had been a negative factor in the elections that we have just had. I hope that we in this place will recognise that our responsibility is to send positive messages in support of Mr. Trimble, and not inadvertently send messages in support of Mr. Paisley. Although, as I said, I understand the motives behind the amendment, I hope that the Committee will not accept it.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

I am inclined to support the amendment. It will send a message from this place to certain people in Northern Ireland: that this place is serious about wanting to punish terrorists, and to see that they remain punished. I was unable to speak on Second Reading. Had I been so able, I think I would probably have pointed out that we were sending a strange sort of message to future terrorists, particularly at a time when we are setting up a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. We may very well be sending a message to people who want to go a lot further than that, and who might want to do it by unacceptable and terrorist means: "It is all right, chaps. You go ahead. You get on with your terrorism, in the full knowledge that when the UK Government get tired of it all, and want to end it, and want a Good Friday, an Easter or any other sort of agreement, they will bring forward legislation which will reduce the sentences for your terrorism". I do not think that that is a good message to be sending, quite frankly, to possible future terrorists.

It is all right to talk about reconciliation. We all agree with reconciliation, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said, there have to be compromises. Of course there have to be compromises. The problem is that as far as I can see so far the compromises have all been one sided. Mr. McGuinness is still talking about the "terrorist British Army" which has to be withdrawn. There has been no modification of the language against the British Army and the security forces in Northern Ireland. We have not seen the compromises that some of us believe should be made in Northern Ireland if we are to achieve a lasting settlement—a settlement which is acceptable to all the people of Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said that people would think it strange if this Parliament were to pass an amendment of the sort that has been moved by the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Molyneaux. But this is still the Parliament of the UK. It does not really matter that the Good Friday Agreement, or any agreement, has been made. In the last analysis, Parliament still has a place, and, indeed, a duty to discuss this agreement, and to make any amendments which it feels are necessary.

I hope that people will not be intimidated into thinking that, because they are Members of this place, or the British Parliament, they no longer have any say over matters which go on in Northern Ireland, because they still do. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, moved his amendment briefly. I believe that it is an amendment that would give encouragement to many people in Northern Ireland. It would give people who have been convicted of terrorism an opportunity to recant in some way. They would be helping towards the maintenance of peace by taking weapons out of Northern Ireland.

Let us not forget that so long as those weapons exist, they are a threat to the new assembly and to the new order in Northern Ireland. That is why it is necessary, and good, that this place and other people should consider the linkage of terrorist early releases to decommissioning. As I have said, while those arms remain—whether they are in the hands of the IRA, the UDA, or whoever else—they are a threat to the continuation of the assembly and its success. I will support the amendment if it is put to a vote.

The Earl of Longford

The greatest danger in Northern Ireland is the existence of the paramilitary bodies. There are half a dozen or more of them. Half of them are Protestant and half of them are Catholic. Half of them are involved in the agreement and half of them are not. If those who are involved gave up their weapons tomorrow far more dangerous paramilitary bodies would remain. In the end, the only way to get rid of the paramilitary bodies is for the public to repudiate them. That will come about only when the Protestant and Catholic communities overcome their suspicions, as I believe will happen, but it can only happen under the agreement. Everything depends upon getting the agreement through.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was not present to make his speech on Second Reading. He will find that some of the sentiments he expressed were expressed at the time. He referred to the position of the British Army. Of course at the moment the British Army is engaged in protecting the Garvaghy Road and the enclave there. I do not know whether that will change the opinion. I think it unlikely. It should change the opinion a little of some of those whom he mentioned.

In referring to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, regarding the lack of relevance of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We all agree with reconciliation, but the difficult question for us to answer is whether the prisoners, whom it is proposed to release, have, in reality, put the violence behind them or whether they will return to it. It will not do any good to release them if they have not given up violence. It would do no good for reconciliation. That is the nub of the question which the amendment addresses in respect of decommissioning.

I have no wish—quite the contrary—to make life more difficult for any members of the assembly, Mr. Trimble or anyone else. I have no wish to step outside the agreement. I do not believe that members of the assembly have taken any soft option in supporting the agreement, being prepared to stand up for it and entering the assembly on that basis. However, the question is whether a linkage with decommissioning is within the agreement.

I have difficulty with this amendment because the linkage proposed is personal to the prisoner rather than collective to the organisation to which he belongs. My amendments, Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 18, and Amendment No. 14 which the Liberal Democrats propose, attempt to look at linkage to the organisation to which the prisoner belongs. I make no judgment as to whether it is more desirable or more effective to have the linkage personal to the individual prisoner as opposed to a collective linkage. I am making a judgment as to which is more in line with the agreement.

It is not an easy matter. However, paragraph 5 of the first page of the agreement states that all concerned will, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement". That seems to set up a general linkage between all the pieces of the package. It has been expressed frequently by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and many others that it is an agreement as a whole, with a series of bits in it. One of the bits relates to the decommissioning; another bit relates to prisoners, as does the Bill. There is a general linkage.

As regards prisoners, in later amendments we seek to stiffen up a little—my noble friend seeks to do so in this amendment—the specific linkage between prisoners and decommissioning, which is part of the general linkage. The real link is the terrorists themselves. It is the terrorist organisations which have to put decommissioning into practice; they have to decommission their weapons. It is the terrorist individuals in prison who stand to benefit most from the Bill and from this part of the agreement.

6 p.m.

The Earl of Longford

How does the noble Lord propose to deal with the paramilitary organisations, Protestant and Catholic, which are outside the agreement and have no intention, it seems, of coming into it?

Lord Cope of Berkeley

They are not dealt with by the Bill because they are specifically excluded if they are not on ceasefire. There is no way that we can deal with those. As I said at Second Reading and on other occasions, the idea that the Bill or the agreement will bring total peace, even if everything goes as smoothly as we all hope it will, is a mistake. There are likely to be organisations on both sides—I make no distinction—that will continue violence for political reasons and for the rackets. That is why a continual security presence and a continual security effort will still be required for a considerable time. But that is no reason for not doing the best we can to put everything in the agreement in place. But the idea that everything will be 100 per cent. successful is wishful thinking of a high order.

I wish briefly to address whether or not a convicted terrorist, languishing (if that is the right word) in gaol can co-operate with the commission in its decommissioning work. My noble friend gave some examples—by giving information, and so on—of the ways in which prisoners might be able to help. However, collectively they have great influence. For example, it was extremely important that in the interview with the Financial Times a few days ago Mr. Wilson, who is described as the senior member of PIRA in the Maze, expressed himself more sympathetic about the possibility of decommissioning than anyone else in PIRA has ever done in public to my knowledge. That is an individual, influential prisoner arguing for the process of decommissioning, and making it possible. It also points out my belief that if prisoners are not arguing for decommissioning—and the Bill is central as to whether they do—it is most unlikely to happen.

On the other hand, if prisoners are arguing for decommissioning, it is more likely to happen. If it does not happen, the agreement and everything connected with it is ultimately doomed. Decommissioning is part of the agreement. It is linked to every other part of the agreement. We are not supposed to use the words "cherry-picking" any more; we were told off for doing so the other day. But people have used the words; we all know what the expression means. No one can separate the different parts of the agreement. There is a general linkage. This is one specific example.

The linkage in the amendment is personal to the prisoner rather than collective to the organisation. I prefer later amendments which I hope to put to the Committee before long.

Lord Dubs

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Renwick and Lord Sheppard, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for their support of the Government's position on the amendment. I was impressed by my noble friend Lord Sheppard when he spoke about the need for reconciliation. There is, and has been for some years, a lot of reconciliation taking place in Northern Ireland. I have met former republican paramilitaries co-operating with former loyalist paramilitaries in working for the good of their local communities. Some impressive work is going on. All that seems to me to add up to a process of reconciliation. Of course there needs to be more of it. But that surely is one of the positive features in Northern Ireland and one which the previous government and this Government seek to encourage.

I do not believe, in the words of my noble friend Lord Stoddart, that the compromises in the agreement were all one-sided. I believe that that will be hotly denied by many of the Northern Ireland political parties across the political spectrum which were happy to support the outcome of the agreement. I believe that the agreement reflected the views of most of the political parties and of the two governments and is therefore an important document. I make no apology for invoking it in support of, or against, some of the amendments under discussion today.

Perhaps I may clarify one point. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said that to the prisoner being released on licence the provision would be of little value as he would have to be convicted of a further terrorist offence. I am pleased to say that that is not so. A prisoner may be recalled if the Secretary of State considers he is likely to re-engage in terrorism. So the licence is wider in effect than the noble Viscount suggested.

We do not want to allow any suggestion that the Bill is about bartering arms for prisoners. I fear that the thrust of the amendment gets us very close to that position. The Good Friday Agreement is a package which makes provision for prisoner releases and decommissioning as well as a range of other matters; and the Government are committed to implementing the agreement in full. But it does not propose a process of the kind outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.

The amendment also does not take account of how decommissioning is intended to happen. Several noble Lords made the point. It is for organisations to decommission weapons, not individuals. Of course it will be for individual members of the organisation, or other designated intermediaries, to take forward the decommissioning process. But they will do so as agents of the organisation, not on their own behalf. This is what is allowed for by the legislation and the decommissioning scheme which came into effect on 30th June.

For these reasons it would not be appropriate to place such a restriction on prisoners as the noble Lord suggests. I call on the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Tebbit

I am not having a great deal of luck today. At least I am encouraged on this occasion by the quarters from which both support and opposition came. I should say to my noble friend Lord Cope that the British Army—or, to be more correct, the Army of the United Kingdom—is today doing in Northern Ireland what it has always done. It is seeking to uphold the law and is operating under the political direction of the Government of the day. It has never done anything else. Of course from time to time that means coming into conflict with one group or another, but it is absolutely certain that there is no difference in what the Army is doing now at Drumcree from what it has done in the past. Whether or not what it is doing at Drumcree is a wise act is a matter for the politicians. It may be seen at some time in the future that it was a very unwise act. That is another matter and no doubt will be the subject of debate on another day.

Once again we are told that nothing can be done which would in any way potentially, possibly conceivably, conflict with the agreement. The agreement is sacred because it has been endorsed by the referendum. I have grave doubts about the conduct of the referendum. As I said earlier, I do not like referendums which are conducted under circumstances where those who support one side are fully armed and have a record for using guns and bombs. In the mildest possible terms, that puts some degree of pressure upon the others.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right—as he so often is, if I may say so: the people of England, Wales and Scotland have not spoken on this deal, this agreement. So we should not preclude the possibility that their representatives in this Parliament might decide to amend in some way the legislation which springs from it. Of course it is right to consider whether we would be wise to do so, what the effects of that would be, or whether we have been backed into a corner where we have little choice, but at least we should remember that we have the right—and that right cannot be taken away from us by virtue of a referendum in one corner of this Kingdom.

I look at page 20 of the agreement, as distributed in Northern Ireland. My amendment does not fly in the face of it. Under the heading of "Decommissioning" it says: All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith … to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms". It does not say "but not as individuals". It does not say "This is a purely collective act". It does not say "Individuals are absolved from any responsibility. It can be done only by the organisation". Of what is an organisation comprised if it is not of individuals? Can we all devolve ourselves of responsibility for what is done by "the organisation"? Surely not. Surely that excuse has been tried before in many places and condemned by many people.

The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, reminded us of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. My understanding is that that commission is more likely to threaten to put people in gaol than to open the gaol doors and let them out. That seems to be closer to its powers. I deplore the comparison with South Africa and the disputed Palestinian territories. In South Africa there was no democratic path forward. In the disputed territories in Palestine and Israel there is still no democratic path forward. In Northern Ireland there always has been a democratic path forward. The problem there has never been lack of democracy but the existence of a number of people who would not accept the outcome of democracy.

It is they with their guns who have won the day. They are getting their way with their guns. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, is shaking his head. Then why did we not just rely on the outcome of elections? Why did we have to have this agreement, when Ministers of the Crown sat down with known criminals, when terrorists were invited in as friends of democracy? Oh no, the democratic path was rejected by some of the people of Northern Ireland. This agreement derives entirely, completely, absolutely and in every last word from that rejection of democracy and that use of force.

It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, shaking his head. Everybody knows what has happened. Governments have been bombed to the conference table. That is what the IRA was for and that is what the violence in Northern Ireland has been about. Rejecting not necessarily this amendment but other amendments which may be better drafted will of course send a message to Northern Ireland. The message will be "Hang on to your guns, boys. Hang on to your guns. It will not cost you anything".

We are constantly told that this agreement is a seamless garment. It is an object of such perfection and beauty that it cannot be changed for the better in any respect. We were told that the Government intend to see it implemented in its entirety. I remind Ministers that part of that determination to see it implemented in its entirety is the obligation which will lay upon the Government to see that within two years all terrorist arms have been decommissioned. I hope that in two years' time I shall be able to stand in this House and say that my unworthy suspicions were ill-founded. I shall rejoice in the knowledge that all terrorist arms have been decommissioned. I doubt that I shall be called upon to do that—and, of course, the prisoners will all be out. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("or of an organisation proscribed under section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment. I am seeking more of an explanation than an argument as to how the Bill is intended to work. I want to know how proscribed organisations fit into the scheme proposed by the Bill. Amendment No. 24 to Clause 9 has similar effect to Amendment No. 6 as regards the release on licence provisions.

I am seeking to explore the relationship between the term "terrorist organisation", which is the term used in the Bill, and the organisations which are proscribed organisations within the meaning of the PTA. The matter was dealt with in one sense by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on Second Reading when he said on more than one occasion that the Bill is not intended to have any effect on whether an organisatiion is proscribed. He said: The provisions in relation to proscription in the Emergency Provisions Act and Prevention of Terrorism Act are unaffected and will remain in place. No organisation which is currently proscribed will be de-proscribed as a consequence of this Bill becoming law. However, it is possible for an organisation to be a proscribed organisation but not be a terrorist organisation as defined by this Bill. This is because the Bill focuses on whether an organisation has established and maintained a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, whereas the EPA and PTA look to the nature of the organisation". A sentence or two later, the Minister continued that, the Secretary of State must consider … whether an organisation is 'concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging'". That is precisely the language of the PTA.

Later, he said: I am talking about prisoners who satisfy the test that they are not associated with an organisation that is not on ceasefire. The key test is that they are not associated with an organisation that is not on ceasefire. If a terrorist", and the Minister did use that word, happens to be a member of the Provisional IRA, and the Provisional IRA is on ceasefire, then that prisoner would qualify".—[Official Report, 29/6/98; cols. 488–490.]

That was extremely helpful and the Minister was in his usual helpful mode in that regard. But it does not seem to me to explain the drafting of Clauses 3 and 9.

The foundation of my concern is the statutory basis for proscribing organisations under the PTA. The IRA and PIRA were both proscribed in Schedule 1 to the Act and other organisations have been added since by order. The test is that the organisations in question appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned in or in promoting or encouraging terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom and concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Section 1 of the PTA also gives the Secretary of State the power to remove an organisation from the list of proscribed organisations. That is a power which she would presumably exercise when it appeared to her that an organisation had so altered its activities that it was no longer concerned in promoting or encouraging terrorism. That is part of the test in this Bill.

Therefore, the dilemma is: how is it possible to be satisfied under Clause 3(5) that a prisoner, if released, would not become a member of a terrorist organisation or would not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism and yet at the same time accept that the same prisoner is and intends to remain a member or supporter of an organisation that warrants retaining its designation as a proscribed organisation?

On the one hand, the four commissioners authorising the release are required to hold that the prisoner is unlikely to be involved in terrorism or with an organisation concerned with it; and, on the other hand, the commissioners are being permitted to reach that view in respect of an individual prisoner—the Minister described him as a terrorist—who is or intends to become and remain a supporter of a proscribed organisation, proscribed exactly because of that organisation's concern in or involvement with the promotion or encouragement of terrorism.

It is extremely difficult to see how anyone can be satisfied that an individual who was and proposes to remain a member of an organisation that the Secretary of State thinks it is necessary to proscribe and to continue to keep proscribed, when released, is not likely to be concerned with those same acts.

I have looked at the terms of the agreement and these amendments would not infringe its terms. However, what I suggest in these amendments is not specifically provided for but nor is there any mention of it. I do not wish to press the amendments if they are not compatible with the agreement, but it seems to me that it would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee what is encompassed by the term "a complete and unequivocal ceasefire". Does that preclude any terrorist activities such as the training of members, the acquisition and stockpiling of weapons, the surveying of possible targets and, for that matter, the disciplining that proscribed organisations have carried out over many years? Or is it limited to the actual carrying out of acts of violence against third parties, whether civilian or military, by shootings, bombings and so on?

If the Minister were able to confirm that the broader intention is the correct one, that would help us all. Certainly, the speech made by the Prime Minister at Balmoral, to which reference has already been made, suggests that the broader construction is the correct one and we certainly hope it is. Indeed, there could be an argument for defining "ceasefire" in the Bill as well on the lines of the Prime Minister's Balmoral speech. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I fail to see the dilemma to which my noble friend referred. Surely it is fairly simple and not very complicated. Under the provisions of Clause 3, at line 11, the commissioners must consider whether a prisoner is or is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation. "Terrorist organisation" must include, in the words of the amendment, the proscribed organisation so that if, as a matter of fact, the commissioners, on their inquiry, conclude that he is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation, that means that there is no need to include the amendment at that stage.

Then one reaches a subsequent stage where a terrorist organisation is specified by order by the Secretary of State. That is not done by a commissioner but it is another process. He may specify only organisations which, under the terms of Clause 3(8)(b): have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire". I simply cannot understand the difficulty. It seems to me that it is a two-stage process undertaken by two different people. It is the type of process which was envisaged by the agreement. I make no apology for relying on the agreement and on the letter of it. I cannot see a difficulty unless there is something defective with my reasoning.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Tebbit

It is quite clear to me that this is a rather difficult proposition. If one looks, first, at the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, it will be seen that it is to define what is a terrorist organisation and, indeed, to list those which are terrorist organisations. The commissioners would not therefore release, or recommend for release, any person who is a member of one of those organisations.

Here is the difficulty. Let us take, for example, the IRA. As my noble friend Lord Cope said, the IRA is a proscribed organisation under the Protection of Terrorism Act precisely because it is a terrorist organisation. But a whole number of the prisoners in the Maze gaol have accommodated themselves, at their wish, in the wings which are run by their favourite terrorist organisation. They have taken that action to show that they are members of it. Indeed, it is proposed that they will be let out precisely because that terrorist organisation is currently on ceasefire. It will be held that the IRA is different in this respect from the INLA. They are both terrorist organisations, as set out in the Protection of Terrorism Act, but one of them is on ceasefire and therefore, as the Minister said on Second Reading, the IRA is for this purpose not a terrorist organisation, while the INLA is.

The only distinction between the two organisations is the fact that one is on ceasefire and the other is not. So where do we go from here? I believe that my noble friend has identified a very clear difficulty. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

Lord Kilbracken

It seems to me that a great deal of confusion arises because of the use of the words "terrorist organisation" in subsection (4) of Clause 3. When we talk about terrorist organisations, we are completely accustomed to thinking of the IRA, the UVF or any of the other organisations that have been involved in terrorism. However, for the purposes of the Bill, we must look to subsection (8) of the clause for a definition of a "terrorist organisation". In effect, the subsection says that if the organisation is on ceasefire it is no longer a terrorist organisation. The members of it are exactly the same and the organisation is the same, but because for the time being it is on ceasefire, it is no longer a terrorist organisation. If it comes off ceasefire, the same people and the same organisation will be involved. But suddenly it is a terrorist organisation.

My own feeling is that this situation could quite easily be rectified by a simple rewording of subsection (4); namely, that, the prisoner is not a supporter of a specified organisation". Then, subsection (8) should also be reworded to say: A specified organisation is an organisation specified by order of the Secretary of State". That would mean that we could use the phrase "specified organisation" instead of "terrorist organisation" wherever it occurs in the Bill. This matter seems to have caused a great deal of confusion both on Second Reading and indeed today. I suggest that it should be rectified by amendments on Report.

Viscount Brookeborough

I support the amendment for some of the reasons that have just been given. Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA, with the IRA being the military wing of Sinn Fein. Although it is a proscribed organisation within the Prevention of Terrorism Act, I do not see how it can ever become a non-terrorist organisation when it calls itself the Irish Republican Army. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the Secretary of State or anyone else could actually convince most people in Northern Ireland that the UVF, the LVF, the INLA or the IRA were non-terrorist organisations. For that reason, I support the principle behind the amendment.

Lord Desai

My noble friend Lord Kilbracken has pointed out where the problem lies. We shall come across this problem again and again. However, if we defined the whole thing completely, logically and legally, we would find that there are many anomalies because it is a messy situation. In other words, we cannot take it as a straightforward legal situation.

In his excellent Second Reading speech the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, made the point that this is not a post-colonial settlement; it is a settlement within the laws of the UK. He was right in one way, but I would say "yes and no" which, as an academic person, I am entitled to do. We had a second referendum in the South. The referendum in the South had to do with the fact that this is neither a purely post-colonial situation nor a purely UK situation. Those two referendums had to be done together because it was a post-colonial situation as of 1922 which was dragged into 1998. Within the Northern Ireland context, it is a UK situation.

Therefore, as I said, we shall come across the situation again and again where pure logic does not apply and politics takes over. Politics is a very messy concept. I quite agree that many people feel very strongly about the matter. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said, there are terrorist organisations which, under some definitions, are "all terrorist". However, some of them have declared a ceasefire and have constructed a situation through which this agreement has been made possible.

All of us know that this is a particularly fragile situation. It may all unravel and we may find ourselves back at square one, where we have been before. However, the point of the Bill, especially the way that it combines subsections (4) and (8) of the clause, is that it says, "Yes, there are terrorist organisations, but the ones that we are currently interested in are those which have agreed to a ceasefire". That is the distinction. Therefore, it is no good defining those organisations under the PTA; indeed, that would be far too general politically. Legally it is right, but politically the correct situation is to see who has agreed to a ceasefire.

Lord Tebbit

I believe that the noble Lord has missed one of the points; namely, that this is an Alice Through the Looking-glass situation. The IRA will be, simultaneously, not a terrorist organisation but still a "proscribed organisation" because it is a terrorist organisation. I may be a simple soul, but I find that very difficult to accommodate. It is as though the Church of England were being held to be simultaneously both a Christian organisation and an atheist organisation. It will cause some puzzlement to all of us, although perhaps not to entirely all of us at times. However, one can understand that it ought to be one thing or the other: is the IRA a terrorist organisation or not? You cannot have two pieces of legislation on the statute book specifying contrary things.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

Surely we have constructively exposed the gremlin in the drafting. Something has gone wrong here. You cannot be a terrorist organisation and then not be a terrorist organisation because you happen to be on ceasefire. I say that because the next day, after the decision has been taken, the ceasefire may be rescinded. If the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, were prepared to consider how the anomaly arises in relation to this provision as drafted, perhaps it would be helpful to have some form of government amendment, or our own amendment, at Report stage. There is something adrift here.

Lord Desai

I shall now reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. The IRA is a terrorist organisation, but within the class of terrorist organisations some have agreed to a ceasefire but others have not. Subsection (8) states explicitly on the face of the Bill that those terrorist organisations which have agreed to a ceasefire are to be treated differently from those which have not. That seems to me logically to be all right. There can be different kinds of terrorist organisation. As my noble friend Lord Kilbracken said, we cannot undo the fact that the IRA is a terrorist organisation. However, we can take into account the fact that it has agreed to a ceasefire and therefore its political wing, Sinn Fein, has taken part in the negotiations which led to the agreement.

I refer to the post colonial/non-colonial distinction. We have been through this before. Someone who was a terrorist became the prime minister of Israel. I refer to Menachem Begin. He was a terrorist who had belonged to a terrorist organisation. The British Government declared him to be a terrorist but he became a prime minister and we loyally supported him when he was prime minister. I could refer to many other examples: Cyprus, India and so on. In this situation we need to apply a political and a legal sense. From that point of view I believe that we should reject the amendment because it seeks to make a simple situation on the face of the Bill much too complicated.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

There must be something about the clear mountain air at the summit of the Labour Back Benches which encourages clarity of thinking. I think that what the noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Desai, have said is absolutely right. When the Minister ponders the conundrum raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I commend to him the solution arrived at by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, which seems extremely elegant and straightforward.

Lord Monson

Is not another possibility the insertion of the words, For the purposes of this Act at the beginning of subsection (8)?

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I point out to the Committee that the Secretary of State will, after this Bill is passed, maintain two lists, one of terrorist organisations and one of proscribed organisations. I accept that any organisation may move from being a terrorist organisation to being an ex-terrorist organisation. It can declare a ceasefire and stop being a terrorist organisation. I do not see how it can stop being a terrorist organisation without, in fairness, being "deproscribed". It seems to me that if it is no longer a terrorist organisation, it should no longer be proscribed. The two ought to move in parallel.

It does not seem to me logical that a prisoner—if this Bill is passed in its present form—will have to say, "I am a member of PIRA", for example, in order to be released. In doing so he will admit to a criminal offence of belonging to a proscribed organisation. He should rightly be charged with saying he belongs to a criminal organisation. Everyone will know he has said that because he has been released. In fact I do not believe he will be charged because a later clause in the Bill will prevent any statement he makes to the commission from being used in evidence. Nevertheless, in logic, he certainly ought to be charged. It is odd for him to have to swear that he belongs to the PIRA in order to be released, and to commit a criminal offence in another context when he does so.

Viscount Brookeborough

Is it not quite simple; namely, that once a terrorist stops being a terrorist—he has to say he is not a terrorist, regardless of the organisation he was a member of—irrespective of which organisation he belonged to, he becomes an official member of the political wing of a party through joining that party? On the loyalist side there is the PUP and others, and on the republican side there is Sinn Fein. At present no one is saying that there is anything wrong with being a member of one or the other of those. By declaring you are no longer a terrorist, you are no longer a member of the kind of organisation, either on the loyalist or the republican side, that we are discussing.

Lord Dunleath

My noble kinsman Lord Brookeborough has summed up the matter admirably. This is really a matter of individuals, not organisations. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Desai, to try to differentiate between organisations as if they are brands of washing powder or butter or margarine, is not the most helpful thing to do. As someone who comes from Northern Ireland, I do not think it will help us in Northern Ireland at this present and difficult time to refer to 1922 or to talk about us as if we were in some way a colonial problem.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Dubs

This seems to have been a somewhat confusing debate. To my mind my noble friend Lord Desai got rid of some of the confusion by explaining the key issues. I shall return to those in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, quoted what I said in the Second Reading debate. I do not wish to quote those words again, but I agree with what he said. He quoted me accurately and if he presses me on the matter I shall read out those words again. However, I know he will not press me on that.

I shall deal with some of the points that have been raised and then I shall try to clarify any outstanding issues that may be somewhat confusing. The effect of these amendments to Clause 3 and Clause 9 would be to make it a condition of release and a licence condition that a prisoner was not a supporter of an organisation proscribed under the PTA.

At Second Reading I explained the difference between the identification of an organisation by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as a terrorist organisation, and the proscription of an organisation. That distinction followed directly from the terms of the Good Friday Agreement which stated that prisoners who supported organisations that had not established and were not maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires would not get early release. The Good Friday Agreement did not make the test whether a prisoner supported a proscribed organisation. We should not rewrite the agreement now by adding such a condition.

However, although it is not a licence condition that a prisoner should not be a supporter of a proscribed organisation, it remains the case that to be a member of such an organisation, or to collect funds, or to provide other forms of assistance, are criminal offences. Should a prisoner engage in such activities, he may be prosecuted and imprisoned.

I think it is reasonable to say that we have a distinction which I believe is understood, except that there may be some semantic difficulty in the fact that in this Bill we use the term "terrorist organisation". I believe that the point is more a semantic one than one of substance. What we are doing in this Bill is defining organisations for a particular purpose in order that a prisoner who is a supporter of an organisation that is on ceasefire can be considered for release. However, if he is a supporter of an organisation that is not on ceasefire he may not be considered for early release. That is the nub of the point at issue here.

Furthermore, it seems to me that it is possible that a paramilitary organisation—I use the term in a more general sense—might declare a ceasefire. That would be an important but not a sufficient condition for someone to say that that paramilitary organisation had ceased to be a terrorist organisation. It seems to me that in order to be clear that an organisation, has ceased to be a paramilitary organisation, it would have to do more than have a ceasefire, but a ceasefire is an essential part of it. For the purposes of the release of prisoners, we have said that that is one of the important conditions; namely, that the organisation is linked to a ceasefire. I think that deals with most of the points that were raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked what was meant by a "complete and unequivocal ceasefire". It is essentially one that is not tactical or sham. Perhaps I may quote from the Prime Minister's Balmoral speech in which he identified the four factors in the Bill. He said that, as the agreement expressly states, the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal: an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence". The Prime Minister's definition is very clear. It deals with all possible aspects of what ought to be a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.

Finally, even if we were to change the words—and, as I have said, there may be a semantic difficulty more than one of substance—an organisation could still be proscribed but meet the test in Clause 3(8). The Bill is about realities, not words.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

Words and their meaning have very important effects in Northern Ireland on many occasions. Indeed, sometimes meanings become very elaborate and apparent only to those who are, as it were, in the swim of Northern Ireland affairs.

To summarise the Minister's remarks, I hope not unfairly, a ceasefire, even defined as widely as the Prime Minister defined it at Balmoral—and I am grateful to the Minister for reinforcing that definition by using it today—is not enough to satisfy the Government as to whether an organisation should be proscribed but is enough to satisfy in relation to the release of prisoners. I am not at all happy about that. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 2, line 16, leave out ("connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland").

The noble Lord said: We now move on to international terrorism. It is well-known that there have been links of various sorts between terrorist organisations in different states. Arms have been acquired, training has been given and so forth. Yet the Government propose to release prisoners without regard to whether they might revert to terrorism for any purpose other than Northern Ireland terrorism.

Some of these prisoners would in other circumstances, as was made clear by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, at Second Reading, be regarded as war criminals. They have links with other organisations which are well-known to the authorities and might well be prepared to co-operate with them. I am not sure how releasing terrorists on this kind of basis when they can continue with international terrorism squares with the need to protect the community as expressed in the agreement. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

I am happy to support the amendment. It is surely a matter of pure common sense. Apart from being immoral, it would surely be the height of folly for any government to tie their hands in advance by pronouncing in effect that some terrorism is less heinous and less unacceptable than other terrorism of equal magnitude merely because it relates to a different part of the world.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned terrorists having links with other terrorist organisations. But it can go further than that. Take the case of a skilled bomb maker who is prepared to sell his skills to the highest bidder—in other words, he is a mercenary. The Provisional IRA may not need his services for the time being. But should he be released if it looks as though he will immediately be recruited by some latter-day equivalent of Black September or the Red Army Faction? Surely not.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I support the amendment. Thinking back a few decades, we owe it to my late colleague, Enoch Powell, for his service on the Committee on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill at that time to ensure that the Act, which was first purely a Northern Ireland Act and later became a UK Act, was transformed into dealing with international terrorism. Noble Lords who have spoken expressed sound common sense. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

However. I am wondering if tomorrow by any chance an international terrorist were to read the account of this debate in Hansard, he might have some difficulty in deciphering the signal that we are sending.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I have put my name to this amendment for this reason. Although hard cases make bad law, I can imagine the possibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred of somebody who is, say, involved subsequent to his release on licence in another terrorist offence—let us say, planting a bomb on behalf of a Middle Eastern group. He may be consumed with bitterness about Britain. He may be a mercenary. He may for mercenary reasons have adopted that as his permanent way of life. In that situation, a convicted paramilitary who was originally caught planting a bomb, given a life sentence and subsequently released under this legislation, yet who some time later was caught planting another bomb in London,—for example, in collaboration with Middle Eastern terrorists—could appeal against the re-imposition of his initial sentence on the grounds that his most recent offence was connected with Middle Eastern, not Northern Irish, issues.

As the Bill is currently drafted, it would allow such a character—and we cannot exclude the possibility that such people exist—seriously to embarrass the Government and avoid many years in prison. The Government would do well to consider that. I take the point that emergency legislation of one sort or another deals with other matters such as drug dealing offences. However, we are talking here about somebody who moves on from Northern Irish terrorism to becoming part of international terrorism and about what would then happen to him.

Lord Tebbit

It does not have to be international terrorism. It does not have to be the possibility of the bomb maker going to Spain to help ETA. Up to now, and we all pray that it will continue, the Scottish nationalist movement has been overwhelmingly peaceful. There have been only one or two occasions on which there has been any element of violence. The same is true of the Welsh nationalist movement. The SNP and its equivalent party in Wales, Plaid Cymru, are absolutely and adamantly opposed to any form of violence. But how absurd it would be if one of the people who had been let out was able to continue his trade, if that is the right word, still within the borders of the United Kingdom for a nationalist cause and would not therefore be pulled back in from release. Of course, he would have to be prosecuted first for the crime that he had most recently committed for it to be established that he had broken the terms of his release. But how strange the wording of the Bill is.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

In moving Amendment No. 7, I should have added that I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 11 and 25, which make exactly the same point at subsequent points in the Bill.

7 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I had intended to respond to the three amendments, which are grouped together.

The purpose of the amendment is perfectly simple and straightforward; that is, to remove the qualification in three places. The fundamental point is that the Bill deals with, and is intended to deal with, terrorism connected to the affairs of Northern Ireland, to use the phrase in the Bill. That is what the agreement deals with as well. It is not intended to apply to terrorism that has no connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland. There is a good case to be made for a review of international terrorist legislation. That is presently under way in the Home Office. The terms of the Bill include acts of terrorism committed outside Northern Ireland which are connected to the affairs of Northern Ireland. For instance, if an act of terrorism related to the affairs of Northern Ireland were committed in London, Wales or Scotland, that would be caught by the present terms of the Bill. What the Bill does not do, and what it is not intended to do, is to require the commissioners to take account of possible acts of terrorism which have no relation at all to the affairs of Northern Ireland. The example is given of Middle Eastern terrorism.

Amendment No. 7 would require the commissioners to consider whether prisoners would be likely to become concerned in Middle Eastern terrorism, which has no connection at all with Northern Ireland affairs. Amendment No. 11 would give the Secretary of State the power to identify a terrorist organisation that was engaged in terrorist activity entirely unrelated to Northern Ireland and unconnected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. We do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to extend the remit of the commissioners in this way.

It was mentioned that arms had in the past been acquired by members of the Provisional IRA from other countries, perhaps the Middle East. It was asserted that training was given outside the United Kingdom and that links were continuing. I dissent from none of those propositions. But all those activities would be caught by the Bill in its present form, because the acquisition of arms, the training, the links and possible donation of funds would all be quintessentially and plainly connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

I recognise the concerns that have been expressed by Members of the Committee about international terrorism, but this is not intended to be a Bill or an agreement about anything other than the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

The reason for mentioning the training and acquisition of arms was that, just as other terrorists elsewhere in the world have given assistance to the PIRA, and, no doubt, to other organisations, so the flow can be in the other direction. It would be most unfortunate if we found that, through this Bill, we were releasing terrorists who then went off to fight in other battles, whether against the United Kingdom or against other people. We have made the point. At this stage, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 2, line 18, at end insert— ("( ) The fifth condition is that the prisoner expresses remorse for the suffering caused by his crime.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 sets out four conditions that must be satisfied, subject to certain qualifications, before a terrorist prisoner can be prematurely released. This amendment would add a fifth condition, or a sixth one, if Amendment No. 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, were to be accepted at a later stage of the Bill. I believe that acceptance of this amendment would make the Bill rather less unjust, and certainly less unpalatable to the victims of terrorist crime and their families, even though it will not and cannot wholly reconcile them to it.

Some Members of the Committee may have read the autobiography, or the condensed version of the autobiography serialised in the Daily Telegraph, of a former IRA terrorist, Sean O'Callaghan, whom I have met. A diminutive, soft-spoken and sensitive-seeming man, he does not look as if he would or could kill a fly. Yet, as an idealistic teenager growing up in a strongly republican milieu in the south west of Ireland, he joined the IRA, became proficient in weaponry and carried out two murders on behalf of the IRA, one of the victims being a woman.

He felt distinctly uneasy after each of these murders, and this persisting unease, combined with a growing distaste for the callous attitude of many of his comrades, caused him to decide to leave the organisation. After a lapse of time, and as a form of atonement, it would appear, he rejoined the IRA but this time under false colours, as a police informer. In this capacity, and at enormous personal risk, he managed, without arousing suspicion, to foil a number of projected IRA murders and ambushes, including, if his claim is correct—and I see no reason to doubt it—the proposed assassination of the Prince and Princess of Wales at the Dominion Theatre in Tottenham Court Road in the early 1980s. Finally, the danger and strain of leading a double life became too much and he quit the Provisional IRA altogether.

Still feeling guilty about the two murders he had committed many years previously, it would seem, he went of his own accord to the police, confessed, was arrested, was put on trial, was convicted and was duly sentenced to life imprisonment. He served eight years. I am fairly certain that, if he had kept a low profile, he would have escaped prosecution, given the enormously valuable work he had done for the security forces on both sides of the Irish border; but his conscience dictated otherwise and he felt that he deserved to go to prison for a time.

The point of all this is that, by his acts of repentance, he wiped the slate clean, certainly as far as most objective onlookers, like most of us, are concerned, and, one would like to think, as far as the families of his victims are concerned as well. It would be nice to think that such acts of contrition could be widely replicated through legislation, but that is clearly totally unrealistic. The contrition that Amendment No. 9 seeks to have expressed as a quid pro quo for early release is vastly less far reaching, less comprehensive and less demanding. Indeed, there could be no guarantee that the remorse to be expressed would be sincere, although the mere fact of having to express remorse in one's own words will to some extent force prisoners to face the enormity of their crimes, which must be a step in the right direction. But, if this small and admittedly inadequate gesture makes the victims' families feel even 10 per cent. less unhappy about the Bill than they are at present, it would be worthwhile writing the obligation into the Bill. It would also help reconciliation in the more general sense, a highly desirable and necessary objective, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, reminded us. I hope that the Committee and the Government will accept at least the principle of the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Monson. It is another very reasonable proposition. Without such an expression of remorse, a released prisoner will be tempted, and may yield to the temptation, to repeat the current practice of taunting the widow or children of the person they have murdered and, as in some cases known to me formerly as a constituency Member of Parliament, targeting and intimidating the bereaved family for years after the murder was committed.

No reasonable person can resist, or object to, a simple requirement for the commissioners to put to the prisoner/applicant such a simple question. If the prisoner/applicant is sincere in his intention to lead a new life"— words which will not be unfamiliar to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard—how could he decline to answer that simple question? After all, surely that question is central to his request for release.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, on Northern Ireland matters. It is a reasonable proposition. However, given the situation that he recalls from his days in another place, I think it is unreal to ask these people to express remorse, which, if that were the price of freedom, they would undoubtedly do with all sincerity. That would put the Government in an embarrassing situation if the action were to rebound on them. I believe that, if we put this requirement on the face of the Bill, we shall create more problems than we stop. One hopes only that that remorse is forthcoming and sincere. But I do not believe that that is what we have to do at this stage.

The Earl of Longford

I felt that perhaps I could contribute from my own knowledge for a moment. Years ago I met a young man who was only a boy at grammar school. He had a promising life and his father was a headmaster. He was so horrified by the performance of British troops on one occasion that he joined the IRA. He distributed letter bombs. Lots of damage was caused and two people lost their hands.

I got to know the boy very well later. He wrote to everybody to apologise. He did not expect to be released; he just felt bitterly ashamed. Eventually, after 15 years, he was released and has made a good life since. So there are people who, completely out of character, do something terrible and then express remorse. On the other hand, I never forget to remind prisoners—people who have done terrible things of whom I see quite a few—of what President Nixon said when he was disgraced. He said, "I have screwed everything up. I have let everyone down. I am not going to grovel". There must always be that little compromise. I simply wanted to contribute to the debate from my own knowledge.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

This is an interesting point. It was particularly emphasised at Second Reading both by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who moved the amendment, and by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. It was also raised in another place where the Minister of State described a similar proposal as "unnecessary, unfortunate and unsound". That seemed to me to be a bit over the top.

The Minister seemed to think that prisoners might suppose that an undertaking they gave to be on their best behaviour would somehow absolve them from meeting the other criteria. That cannot be a serious worry. It would be a confirmation of the criteria for release rather than a substitution of different criteria.

Nevertheless, I have doubts about the amendment. Remorse can certainly be genuine and the case of Sean O'Callaghan is a good one in that context—as no doubt is the case cited by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. But the question is whether remorse should be a condition of release and that is the central difficulty. I have no doubt that if the amendment were accepted it would make everyone—certainly me—feel much better about releasing terrorists. But perhaps my noble friend Lady Denton may be right in that it is difficult to make it a condition of release, which is what the amendment proposes.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I share the same instinctive sympathy for the arguments put forward. However, remorse is not something to be required by Act of Parliament; it derives from a moral imperative. Indeed, when I was listening with some care to what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, it seemed to me that he illustrated that point abundantly. He said, in reference to Sean O'Callaghan, that he acted in the way he did because his conscience dictated it to him, not an Act of Parliament.

The noble Lord said that actions might wipe the slate clean. I doubt that. If there is genuine remorse, that would be a moral act for those who had behaved criminally and disgracefully. It might—it is not for me to speculate; it is an impertinent intrusion into other people's pain—be some consolation to some families; I do not know. But something required as of rote has no moral worth and, indeed, might reasonably be regarded as insulting.

I pay attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said. On different sides of this Chamber she and I debated the problems of Northern Ireland over many years and I always pay careful attention to what she says. I believe that she is right on this occasion.

I share the thought behind the amendment. I honour the thought behind the amendment. But it is not something we want in an Act. If a man is remorseful, he should be remorseful and express it, not be made to parrot out a formula in an Act of Parliament.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Monson

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Molyneaux of Killead for supporting me. The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, suggests that if a prisoner expressed remorse, was released in consequence and committed another terrorist crime after his release, the Government would be embarrassed. But the Government will be embarrassed anyway if a terrorist prisoner re-offends, no matter whether or not he previously expressed remorse. Therefore, that argument against the amendment is not particularly powerful.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, conceded that the amendment would make everyone feel better, "but", and then brought forward objections. But is not the whole point to make people feel better, particularly the victims of terrorist atrocities? Making them feel better is valuable and something towards which we should aim. It would make people in Northern Ireland who are unhappy with the agreement feel better. That must be desirable. People on this side of the water would feel better, too.

In relation to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I concede that enforced repentance is not as morally worthy as voluntary repentance. But surely it is better than nothing. It sends some kind of signal. Obviously, we cannot for the moment agree on that and I shall have to reflect on what has been said.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he believe that the victims of this prisoner's crime will believe the expression of remorse?

Lord Monson

There is a chance that they will; the remorse may be genuine. One noble Lord this afternoon talked of meeting prisoners from both the loyalist and republican sides who were genuinely repentant, or partly repentant, for their crimes. There is a reasonable chance that some of the remorse expressed would be genuine. I believe it would be helpful, though that is just an opinion. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 2, line 28, leave out ("may specify only") and insert ("shall specify").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 10 raises a simple but important point. It seeks to take out from the second line of Clause 3(8) the words, "may specify only" and insert "shall specify".

As drafted, subsection (8) gives to the Secretary of State a discretion as to whether or not to specify an organisation as a terrorist organisation even in a situation where she believes, first, that the organisation is, concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging it, and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.

I fully accept that it will be for the Secretary of State to decide, on the basis of information placed before her—much of which will be from the security services and her security advisers—whether or not a particular organisation is concerned in terrorism and whether or not any such organisation is not maintaining a "complete and unequivocal ceasefire". Subsection (9) sets out on the face of the Bill the matters to which the Secretary of State shall have regard in addressing the issue which arises for her consideration under subsection (8)(b). It is set out helpfully, though possibly the use of the words "in particular", as may be discussed later, are a less helpful part of that subsection.

In relation to the discretion in the first part of subsection (8), the Bill is silent as to what criteria are relevant. The Bill gives the Secretary of State no guidance whatever as to the circumstances in which she should specify an organisation or those in which she may decide not to.

Having considered very carefully what is set out in the Belfast agreement, and in particular what is set out in paragraph 2 on page 25 of the agreement, it seems to me that there is an argument that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a particular organisation is concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland and if she is also satisfied that such an organisation has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, she should not have a discretion as to whether or not to specify such an organisation as a terrorist organisation for the purposes of the Bill. In considering her duties under the PTA it may be that other considerations may be applied or may be relevant. But, for the purposes of this Bill, it seems to me that there is an argument for saying that there should not be such a discretion.

If the discretion is to remain in the Bill it would lay the Secretary of State open to all manner of pressures upon her to refrain from certifying a particular terrorist organisation. Those pressures might be political and, in certain instances, they might be worse than that. They might in fact take the form of threats of terrorist violence or terrorist violence itself by some offshoot of the organisation concerned.

If one turns to the terms of paragraph 2 of the section of the agreement headed "Prisoners" one reads: Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements". There is no suggestion in that paragraph, or in any other section of the agreement dealing with the issue of prisoner release, that either the British Government or the Irish Government should have a discretion as to whether or not to water down what is set out in the sentence that I have quoted. On the contrary, when one reads the sentence, it is, I believe, quite unequivocal that if a prisoner is affiliated to an organisation which has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, that prisoner will not benefit from the arrangements for early release. In those circumstances, it appears that this matter might merit some further consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Tebbit

I am a little puzzled by the effects of this subsection. As I read it, it seems that the Secretary of State could quite lawfully, if the provision is enacted in this form, believe that an organisation is concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire and yet be free not to specify. That is the problem here. The Secretary of State could think that such an organisation is still involved with terrorism and has not established a complete ceasefire and yet refuse to specify in that way. Therefore, I am inclined at the moment to support the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend.

Viscount Brookeborough

I, too, am inclined to support the amendment. If one looks at paragraph 2 of the agreement and reads a little further one sees that the last sentence states: The situation in this regard will be kept under review". I am not sure that the situation with regard to releasing people who may one day be supporters of a group still involved in terrorism should ever be reviewed. It seems quite simple that unless that group is on ceasefire they cannot be released. Therefore, perhaps the Minister will explain how the situation in that regard will be kept under review.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

I, too, have great difficulty with this clause. The key to this part of the Bill is to be found in the passage that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has just identified. It is paragraph 2 of the section headed "Prisoners". It states: Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements". There is a need for the Minister to indicate what kind of hypothetical situation could justify the failure to specify an organisation where the two tests set out in subsection (8)(a) and (b) are not fulfilled; in other words, where an organisation may yet be concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland or in promoting or encouraging it and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. If those tests are not fulfilled, I, for the moment, cannot imagine what circumstances could justify the Secretary of State in not finding that a prisoner was affiliated to an organisation which had not established or was not maintaining a complete and completely unequivocal ceasefire. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could perhaps later, or better still now, fill that gap.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I said at the beginning of the debate that from these Benches we would not support things which sought to go further than the agreement. However, having listened to what noble Lords have said, and having studied, as we have been directed to by several noble Lords, paragraph 2 on page 25, I have been persuaded by the debate and should like to ask the Government why they will not replace the word "may" with "shall".

Lord Dubs

I have listened to the arguments put forward. This amendment was considered in another place but was not accepted there. The Bill quite rightly gives the Secretary of State the power to identify organisations that do not meet the test in Clause 3(8). That this should be expressed as a power is correct and is consistent with the fact that it is the Secretary of State's belief in the matters specified in subsection (8) which determines whether an organisation is or is not specified.

Your Lordships will understand that the Secretary of State will be careful to use that power in the appropriate circumstances. As such, there is no value in placing the Secretary of State under such a duty. Indeed, it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not take this responsibility very seriously. It is, after all, an absolutely fundamental part of the whole Bill. I believe that the element of discretion which is given to her so that she can exercise her responsibilities fairly and properly is a reasonable one.

Subsection (10) makes provision for the Secretary of State to keep under review the organisations identified under Clause 3(8). That was added at the request of the UUP to make the review process clear. The Secretary of State has shown herself capable over her period in office of making difficult decisions. After all, in the past she has thrown parties out of the talks when she has been under pressure from others to keep them in. The Secretary of State takes a very robust attitude to her responsibilities and I am quite sure that she would give effect to them fairly and properly, as expressed by noble Lords here. But I do not believe it is necessary to go as far as to make the amendment that has been suggested.

Lord Tebbit

I am grateful to the noble Lord. We do not have to doubt the ability or the integrity of the Secretary of State of the day. After all, persons change. Ministers come and go. The Secretary of State is not specified here as Ms. Mo Mowlam; it is the office which is held. Therefore, the personality of the present holder of that office is irrelevant to the matter. Indeed, as I understand it and if I recollect rightly from my own experience in government, if the Secretary of State were to be incapacitated for some reason, another Secretary of State could carry out this function. I recollect being somewhat surprised to discover that one day many years ago when, as Secretary of State for Employment, I was asked to sign an order prohibiting a suspected terrorist from entering Great Britain. When I observed, "That is a bit outside my responsibility, isn't it?", I was reminded that the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State.

We cannot accept what the noble Lord has said. I would be grateful if he would give us an example of when the Secretary of State would not wish to specify an organisation which was behaving in this way. What would be the disadvantage of putting the matter specifically as my noble friend has suggested? I cannot conceive what it would be. Indeed, the Minister said that he cannot conceive such a situation either so why do we not make the words in the Bill match those that he has uttered?

7.30 p.m.

Lord Dubs

I suggested that the Secretary of State would exercise her responsibilities properly under the Bill and that there would be no question of anyone feeling that she was not doing that. Given her track record, I believe that that is a reasonable conclusion to reach, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbitt, has more or less agreed. I am suggesting that it is not necessary to go as far in the Bill as the amendment proposes.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I do not believe that the Minister has faced up to the crucial point which lies behind this amendment which was focused by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. What could justify a decision not to specify an organisation if the Secretary of State was satisfied that it was concerned in terrorism and had not established and was not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire? No one suggests for a moment that the holder of the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the present time has not provided a great service to the people of these islands. She will no doubt face up to difficult decisions which may lie ahead. However, this Bill will be in force for a number of years. Initially it covers a two-year period. As my noble friend Lord Tebbitt has reminded us, the Secretary of State can be any Secretary of State.

I do not intend to press this amendment tonight, but I hope that the Minister will think very carefully about this matter. He has not provided any explanation of the circumstances which would justify a decision not to specify; nor has he given any reason why my amendment would in any way frustrate the agreement which, time and time again in these debates, we are reminded cannot be departed from in any way. I make it clear that this is a matter to which I suspect a number of noble Lords will return at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill be resumed not before 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.