HL Deb 06 July 1998 vol 591 cc1040-67

8.35 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 3.

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 2, line 34, leave out ("in particular").

The noble Lord said: This is a more substantial group of amendments and in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 18.

I shall speak first about Amendment No. 12 which is the smallest and least significant amendment in this group. In a way, it is separate from the others although they all refer to the way in which determinations are to be made under Clause 3(9) by the Secretary of State in deciding whether an organisation is in fact a terrorist organisation under subsection (8).

Amendment No. 12 seeks to remove the words "in particular". This is a legal point. I understand that in discussion on the Human Rights Bill, it emerged that the words "in particular" are superfluous. To tell a Minister discharging a statutory function to have particular regard to something is either superfluous or misleading. It is superfluous in the sense that the Minister would not be performing his duty if he failed to have regard to the factors which are relevant; and it is potentially misleading if it is suggested that such factors should exclude other relevant factors.

I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to understand all the niceties of that particular argument as it was discussed on the Human Rights Bill, but I thought it worth raising the matter for discussion on this occasion.

The other amendment standing in my name and those standing in the name of the Liberal Democrats return to the question of decommissioning, which we have already discussed in part on an earlier amendment. It is my view that the difference between the two sides of the Committee, and in particular between the two Front Benches, is not as significant as some commentators seem to make out on this matter. In the first place, we wish to stay within the letter and spirit of the agreement and I shall explain in a few moments why we believe that our amendment is within the agreement.

But it follows from that that we do not want to create a precondition. The Minister and some of his colleagues have returned time and again to the question of establishing a precondition and he spoke earlier this evening of bartering prisoners for guns. I am not quite sure how he works out that our wording means the establishment of a precondition by comparison with the wording in the Bill. Perhaps we mean something different by the word "precondition". We are not necessarily thinking about exactly the same thing. Therefore, to make it clear, I take it to mean what I believe lawyers call a "condition precedent"—that is to say, something which must be in place before something else happens.

If we had tabled amendments which called, for example, for some or all arms to be given up before any prisoners, or all of them, were released, that would be a precondition—a condition precedent. However, our amendment asks only that the Secretary of State should believe that an organisation is co-operating with the decommissioning commission as opposed to merely taking into account whether or not it is co-operating with the commission. We want the two processes to be parallel. The hurdle that we seek to set up is easy to clear today, as it were, for an organisation that might be affected by this provision when the whole matter of decommissioning is at a very early stage.

Apparently some terrorist organisations have appointed representatives and are talking to the decommissioning commission, while others have not done so. Therefore, in taking into account or deciding whether or not she believes that they are co-operating with the commission, the Secretary of State will obviously have regard to the organisations which are talking and those which are not. If the Secretary of State gives any weight to that at all, she is ensuring, to some degree at any rate, that the two processes are parallel.

Of course, we are putting a slightly stiffer test on the matter. However, I also promised to say whether I thought it was in line with the agreement. I believe that it is, for the reasons which I explained earlier to the Committee. The very first page of the agreement says: We pledge that we will, in good faith, work to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement". So there is a general commitment—a general linkage—between all the different parts of the agreement, including both the decommissioning and the aspects relating to the prisoners. There is also the specific practical link between both decommissioning and prisoners, in that both of them affect the terrorists and the terrorist organisations very directly by comparison, for example, with the setting up of the north/south ministerial council, or some other aspects of the agreement, where those presently languishing—if that is the right word—in the Maze are not so immediately and practically affected. But of course they have every right to expect that all the other parts of the agreement will also be carried out. Indeed, I have no doubt that they will expect that.

We were asked earlier to rely on the character of the Secretary of State—and, indeed, the character of the Prime Minister—as being a guarantee that all would be properly pursued. Frankly, I do not believe that that is really sufficient—not, I hasten to add, for any personal reasons connected with the Secretary of State herself or the Prime Minister, but because, as has already been discussed, the Secretary of State is an institution and not a single person. Indeed, the situation could change even temporarily during which time another Secretary of State might take charge of such matters during the temporary incapacity of the Secretary of State or because of some other difficulty.

In any case, the whole matter has to do with pressures. If there is a gap here and thereby an opportunity for prisoners to be released without decommissioning going along in parallel, it seems to me that people will try to force that gap open. The pressures on the Secretary of State will then be much greater and it will be much more difficult for the Secretary of State—whoever it is at the time—to resist. Those pressures can be of all sorts of different kinds, both democratic and undemocratic. Therefore, I believe it is right to stiffen up the wording of the Bill a little. That is what Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 seek to do.

I put Amendment No. 18 into a slightly different category. Its purpose is to insert the word "and" between paragraphs (9)(c) and (9)(d), which relate to the four conditions. The word "and" is very important. If the Secretary of State is to take into account those four conditions, will she look at each one separately and decide in each case, "Yes, I think we can put a tick against each one"? Alternatively, will the Secretary of State look at all four of them together and say, "Well, on matters (a), (b) and (c) the organisation in question is doing quite well, but on (d), decommissioning, it is not doing very well: never mind, we shall just look at (a), (b) and (c)"? Without the word "and" it seems to me that it is open to the Secretary of State to say just that. Indeed, if it is open, people will press very hard for it. They will say, "Look, we are fulfilling (a), (b) and (c). We are doing our best on (d) and admittedly we haven't got anywhere. Nevertheless, we are doing our best and you don't need us to fulfil that one as well". The pressure will certainly be on.

Again, one has to address the question whether or not this is within the letter and the spirit of the agreement. I believe that it is, for the reasons that I have already given but also for another more specific reason. We are constantly referred back to the Prime Minister's speech at Balmoral on 14th May. In that speech, he set out the four conditions, although not precisely as they are set out in the Bill. Nevertheless, they are set out in a similar way. Indeed, the legal drafting gives every indication of having been based on the Balmoral speech. In fact, we have been told from time to time that it does pretty directly reflect the Balmoral speech. However, there is one difference: the Balmoral speech does include the word "and". The four conditions that are set out are set out as if they were separate with the word "and" included, but not as a general statement, which is what appears in the Bill. That is very significant in defending Amendment No. 18 against the charge that it is outside the letter or the spirit of the agreement.

While talking about the Balmoral speech, it is relevant for me to quote what the Prime Minister said immediately after setting out these factors. He said that the factors must be, given legislative expression directly and plainly in the legislation to come before Parliament"; in other words, this Bill. Later, he said that, it is surely reasonable that there should be confidence-building measures from these organisations"— referring to the terrorist organisations— after all the suffering they have inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland … we also have a responsibility to provide protection against abuse of the democratic process, and its benefits"— and there is no bigger benefit to those concerned than this prisoners' Bill— by those not genuinely committed to it". I agree with that. Indeed, for that reason, I think that this amendment which seeks to include the word "and" is of great importance. However, I do not want to take away from the importance of Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 about which I spoke earlier. As I said, they attempt to insert the proposition that the Secretary of State should believe that decommissioning, among other things, is being carried out by the organisations.

In Amendment No. 14, which is also in this group, the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, is suggesting, appropriately enough from the Liberal Democrat Benches, what I believe one could call a halfway house, in that his amendment would still mean that the Secretary of State would take into account the various factors. But instead of just thinking about them, he or she has to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion on the various factors one way or another. That does not go as far as I would like to go, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for stepping at least a few yards in our direction. I hope that I can persuade the Minister and his colleagues to go at least that far, but if possible further, because that is extremely important.

I said earlier—I believe this strongly—that if there is no decommissioning the agreement will fail sooner or later. Other things can trip it up, of course, but if there is no decommissioning I believe that confidence in the agreement will fade away to below vanishing point. The only chance of obtaining decommissioning is to make sure that the prisoners realise it has to proceed in parallel because the prisoners will argue for it within the terrorist organisations and then it stands a chance of happening. I beg to move.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, was kind enough to indicate that I had moved in his direction. I think the attitude being taken by the Conservative Benches in this Chamber is a great deal more careful and—if I dare say so—responsible than that taken some weeks ago in another place. We can see where the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and his colleagues are coming from. However, I am afraid that that is as far as my politeness goes. I find myself in unfortunate company because I do not agree with any of the amendments in this group, apart from my own. The groupings list states that, every effort is made to secure agreement to these groupings". However, I am afraid those prodigious efforts did not include talking to me about the matter. I find myself not in agreement with Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15 and 18. I shall say why in a moment.

I shall first discuss my amendment, Amendment No. 14. I want to make it absolutely clear to the Committee that the point of this amendment is not in any way to make the conditions either easier or more difficult to fulfil. The point of it is quite different. If my amendment were accepted, page 2, line 34, would state, In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether on the evidence available to him he has concluded that an organisation and then the four desiderata are set out.

The point of that amendment is that subsection (9) as it is presently worded seems to imply that considerations (a), (b), (c) and (d) are objective facts which are easily understood and easily agreed by everyone. That cannot possibly be the case. Each of them is a matter of difficult and sensitive judgment, even more so—I support this in the Bill—when it is a matter of trying to judge them in combination to see whether, in combination, the Secretary of State should take the view that he or she has to take. The first aim is to transfer a spurious objectivity that these are objective facts in the real world to the realm in which they properly belong, which is as matters of judgment that someone has to make. Who is that someone? Clearly it is the Secretary of State who has to make the judgment. That brings me to the second purpose of my amendment; namely, that he or she should do so on the basis of the evidence available to him.

I think earlier in the debate someone talked in this context about the crucial role of the security services. It is quite apparent that on each of these considerations the advice of the chief constable in particular, but also of other security authorities, will be crucial for the Secretary of State to make these judgments. I prefer a transparent process in which there is no mumbo jumbo and no mystery, and where it is quite clear that it is the Secretary of State who has to make a judgment and has to reach a conclusion, and that he or she should do so on the basis of the evidence available. That is the whole object—a rather humble one, you may say—of my amendment. I seek to take this matter out of a curious kind of limbo in which these become revealed truths, and put it where it belongs as a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State using the evidence available.

I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Cope, feels that that is a good thing in itself—I welcome that—but it is not meant to be a halfway house to the other amendments, which I fear fail the test I set from these Benches at the beginning of the debate, which is that they should not seek to build on the Good Friday Agreement additional linkages, conditions and tests. I do not think that that is appropriate.

I oppose Amendment No. 18. I think that the insertion of the word "and" turns (a), (b), (c) and (d) into separate conditions, each of which has to be separately met in order for the Secretary of State to arrive at conclusions. That clearly is not the purpose of the Good Friday Agreement which is that when the considerations are taken as a whole and taken together that judgment should be arrived at. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support that amendment in particular. I do not in practice support the others in the group.

I urge the Government to think hard about Amendment No. 14 in my name, and particularly about the discrepancy between subsection (8) and subsection (9). In subsection (8) we find the Secretary of State having to specify organisations which "he believes" fulfil certain conditions. However, in subsection (9) the situation has reverted to the limbo I mentioned. In subsection (9) the Secretary of State has to take into account whether an organisation "is" fulfilling certain conditions. Who works that out? Whose conclusion is it, and on what evidence is it reached? It is that I should like clarified.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

I very much regret that I was not able to be present at Second Reading because of an engagement in Northern Ireland. I have, of course, read with great care the Official Report. I was not in the least surprised to find in virtually every speech expressions of great distaste for this Bill, and in some cases for the necessity for this Bill. In one or two instances there were expressions of rather more than distaste. The reason for that is too obvious to need stating again tonight.

The prospect of terrorist prisoners being relieved of the greater part, in some instances, of what courts have held to be their just deserts is something which revolts my heart, as it has revolted the hearts of many others in this Chamber. I have seen too many of the victims and I have seen too many of the scenes at which they became victims. There was a time last week when Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 carried my name in support. In case anyone has noticed that that is no longer the case, I thought I should offer a few words of explanation. I am afraid it is something which will not surprise my noble friend Lord Molyneaux, for example, or others. It is simply that I have changed my mind. The background is the following.

In almost every speech at Second Reading it was stated that the agreement is a most historic and momentous achievement. I think it a most hopeful achievement. There was a recognition that the agreement has to be sustained, even though, of course, it contains aspects which are distasteful. The importance of Her Majesty's Government not amending it unilaterally was recognised. Like it or not, in some respects I too believe that the agreement has to be given every reasonable chance to work. The agreement is immensely hopeful as an achievement. I wish that it had been tougher on the question that we have been discussing, and more specific in relation to what is required of the Secretary of State when assessing whether an organisation has or has not established, is or is not maintaining, a ceasefire. However, I have to face the fact that it is not.

My distaste for the Bill led me at first to want to support Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I thought that I properly should do so. However, I admit that I have changed my mind. I recognise that there are two ways of looking at the matter; it is not black and white. I do not want any terrorist organisation or future supporter of any terrorist organisation to be given any unnecessary advantage. They have too many as it is. It is important that the Bill is not amended in any way that can plausibly be argued to take it beyond the text, or the spirit deriving from the text, of the agreement.

I was much influenced by the fact that Mr. David Trimble said on 17th June that the Government's concessions have given, legal effect to the decommissioning section of the Agreement and the pledge given by the Prime Minister at Balmoral". I fear that Amendments Nos. 13 and 15, quite unintentionally, would, or might foreseeably, give such an advantage to a future terrorist organisation or a future supporter thereof. I appreciate that there are two ways of looking at the matter. However, it can be said that it imports by being much more specific, and not as general as is the linkage—to which my noble friend Lord Cope is perfectly entitled to point—an indication that can be prayed in aid, plausibly and perhaps unjustifiably, that the British Government had unilaterally moved beyond the spirit at least of the agreement.

I confess to having adopted successively each of the two ways of looking at the problem. However, for the reason that I have tried to explain, I do not feel able to support Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I support Amendment No. 18, for the reasons advanced in support of it by my noble friend Lord Cope. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that I have no problem at all with Amendment No. 14.

9 p.m.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his explanation. He speaks as one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law, and a recent Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have listened with great respect to all the views that he has expressed so clearly.

However, it is rather a pity that, from the very first day that we read the Bill, and even before it appeared in another place right through the harsher debates in another place, and unfortunately last week at Second Reading in this House and all day today, there has been an implication that somehow or other those of us who dare to table amendments and speak to them are against the agreement and are wreckers of the agreement, that we are determined to pull down the whole edifice.

I, being an old hand at all of these matters, take a rather wider view. A party conference provides a broad brush steer for the party concerned. A party manifesto, particularly an election manifesto, is slightly more definitive. But that, too, is only policy-making in outline. It does not become legislation until it passes through both Houses here and receives Royal Assent. There is a misunderstanding about our desire to improve the Bill. That is why we are here, both in this House and in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, got it right when he said that we seek to put in place the devices and various arrangements outlined—but no more than outlined—in the Good Friday Agreement. Not everyone may be aware of the fact that matters were only broadly agreed in the Good Friday arrangement.

I do not know whether many noble Lords saw the interview given by the chairman of the talks, Senator Mitchell, who did a very good job generally throughout all the tortuous discussions. The BBC in Northern Ireland broadcast a lengthy interview given by Senator Mitchell for television transmission. The interviewer said to him: "Senator, was it touch and go to the very end on Good Friday?". Mr. Mitchell looked very relaxed, smiled broadly and said, "Oh yes, it was. The final draft of the document was circulated in the late afternoon on Good Friday. I had a telephone call from David Trimble, who asked for more time to enable his team to consider recent alterations that afternoon". He said, again with a broad grin, Your request will be met, Mr Trimble. I have summoned the final plenary for 5 o'clock because I have to catch my flight in the morning. It is now 4.45. You have your extra time—15 minutes exactly". I am not complaining about that. I was not on the negotiating team. I do not wish ill on any of those participants or Senator Mitchell. However, that gives an insight as to how broad the brush was. When one talked to members of the negotiating team from various parties, no two of them could give exactly a clear idea of what they had agreed in relation to some of the more substantial matters in the agreement.

That is why I say with great regret that I viewed the Bill when it appeared as I would any other Bill coming before this House or, in earlier days, the other House; namely, as a draft Bill designed to be debated, amended, improved, and all the rest. I cannot understand why there appears to be a degree of resentment in some quarters and a curious misunderstanding that those of us who seek to improve the Bill, as we would any other legislation, are stepping outside the bounds into forbidden territory and attempting to go against or to damage the agreement. The agreement was, after all, not signed by anyone. It seemed to have been assented to by some people who spoke, but there were other voices in that gathering that were silent. Noble Lords can put their own interpretation on that.

I have got that off my chest and shall now come to the amendment. As it stands, subsection (9) is utterly unconvincing. It would be a bit of an insult to the Secretary of State to retain the form of words in the subsection: the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account". The word "particular" has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. The Secretary of State is required only to "take into account"; not to make a judgment on certain facts, not to make a decision, but simply to, take into account whether an organisation", is complying with four of the most fundamental conditions set out in the Good Friday Agreement, the sacred document. I believe that the words "take into account" debase the Bill and with it the agreement itself. It is true to say that the general public in Northern Ireland are becoming more cynical by the day. In those circumstances, a phrase like "take into account" certainly will not do.

Amendment No. 13, in particular, is designed not to damage the agreement but to strengthen the authority of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in dealing with this most vital issue of all. If we do not do that, I am afraid that the entire release scheme will descend into farce, and confidence thus lost will never be regained.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

I support the amendments in this grouping, including the one proposed by the Liberal Democrat Benches. It was nice to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holme, admit that there was more sense on red Benches than on green Benches on this side of the Chamber.

I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in trying to persuade those on the Benches opposite that we are not trying to wreck the agreement or to move in a unilateral fashion. We are trying to improve this legislation and thereby perhaps protect the Government. We hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the suggestions we have put forward. We believe that all of them add benefit to the wording of the Bill. It will be interesting to see whether the noble Lord can accept any of them. After all, he began the Committee stage by stating that he would accept, and be comfortable with, some of the suggestions. We are still waiting for that.

Lord Desai

I am sorry to intervene in this debate; I do not know whether my noble friend will find it helpful. I have the impression that we have still not quite come to terms with the nature of the agreement. I tried, rather hesitantly, to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—who, unfortunately, is not in his place—that this is not entirely a UK matter and that neither are the UK Government overall sovereign but a partner in negotiation with other parties. The fact that these parties are groups of citizens of the UK is neither here nor there. It is a complicated process. We are in a messy situation, half decolonising, half regulating.

I know that this may inflame passions rather than calm them, but I think of the agreement as more like a multilateral treaty which various parties have arrived at. What we are doing is embodying the treaty in a piece of UK legislation, and disturbing it may mean that other parties who agreed to it may feel that they will be better off doing something else.

At least one party, the Republic of Ireland, was a sovereign party. The Republic agreed to an historic decision in its referendum. An historic concession was made by the Republic to remove Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution. That was quite amazing. In the first post-Imperial partition which has been legitimised, as it were, post-haste, the Republic has agreed that it does not have a claim on Northern Ireland. That is very much part of this matter. If we start messing about—with the best intentions of course—the agreement will unravel. That is the way I view the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in relation to Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. It is a delicate situation.

I am not sure that I would include the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. To me, the words "shall take into account" do not need embellishing further. There is no great empirical factor involved; it means that certain things shall be taken into account as the Secretary of State feels it appropriate to do so. I am worried that if we start to unravel this, it will fall apart. It is important that we carry the Bill through as it stands because it was carefully drafted.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Before my noble friend replies, I should like to say a few words. I become a little troubled when people say, in relation to a Bill that we are considering, that we should not do anything about it; that we should not amend it in case it upsets an agreement which the Government have already made without consultation with the British people outside Northern Ireland.

The fact is that around 56 million people in Wales, Scotland and England have an interest in this matter. They always have had an interest in it. After all, the IRA terrorists have not confined their activities to Northern Ireland; they bombed many places on the mainland. We have just as much interest in decommissioning therefore as anybody in Northern Ireland.

It is right and proper that this place, as part of the United Kingdom Parliament, should be able to speak on behalf of the English, the Welsh and the Scots who have not been consulted. We have not had a referendum about it here. So this is the only place where we can make our voice heard. Those in this Chamber who represent the mainland—Parliament represents Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the UK—are entitled to introduce amendments and, as with any other Bill, to advise the Government of their opinion. That is what Parliament is all about. If that is not what we are about, why on earth are we discussing the damned Bill? Why are we wasting our time? If we are being told that anything we do will upset the agreement, why are we discussing the Bill? Why do we not go home to our wives and families, go to bed, have a good night's sleep and come back tomorrow to do business which will perhaps have some effect?

Generally speaking, therefore, I believe, as I hope I made clear, that we are entitled to discuss this Bill. Indeed, if there is a vote, I shall be inclined to support the amendments before us. They stiffen up certain matters; they say to the terrorist organisations—not individual terrorists in this case—that they have to co-operate in decommissioning. As I said earlier today, unless we have decommissioning by both sides, the assembly cannot work. It will be under perpetual threat from one side or the other. I believe that the amendment will be a little help towards that and is deserving of our support.

Viscount Brookeborough

Perhaps I may first apologise for not being present for the beginning of the amendment; I was trying to rearrange my flights in accordance with the time.

It is my inclination to support the amendment. The Minister may wonder why so many of us are supporting so many small amendments involving words like "in particular". He should realise that the reason there are so many is that the agreement in itself was vague in intention in order that it could be made. The Bills that have come forward, which will probably become Acts, are to make the provisions within the agreement more precise. If we go on allowing very vague words to go through in every clause, it will be a wonder if the Bill is not fought over and disagreed with for months to come. Therefore, although the amendment in itself is not necessarily vital—neither are many of the others in themselves—overall, we are dealing with a very weak and rather limp Bill which could cause more trouble than we realise at the moment.

Lord Dubs

I have listened with great interest to the comments on these various amendments. This is an important part of the legislation and has provoked a great deal of interest both in this House and beyond. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Stoddart that of course this House has the right to consider all aspects of the Bill and, indeed, to put forward suggestions or amendments to alter it. But it is equally the Government's right and the right of other noble Lords to say that, having got an agreement which represents the best opportunity for peace for Northern Ireland for many, many years, if we believe that certain suggested amendments are counter to the agreement and might jeopardise it, that is part of the process of debate and discussion. No one is saying to the noble Lord that he does not have the right to make whatever contribution to the debate he wishes. But the Government for their part want the agreement to stick and want to give effect to it because they believe that that is the best way forward.

Perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 18. I understand the thinking behind them. In essence the argument is that, as it is legitimate for the Secretary of State to take into account the four factors in Clause 3(9) when determining whether a terrorist organisation has established and is maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, it is no less legitimate for her decision to be governed by these factors. I understand and recognise the logic behind that argument. On the face of it, it is only a small step from saying that these are factors which should be taken into account to saying that the Secretary of State's decision should be governed by them. I have to tell the Committee that there is a clear difference between the two, however, and the amendments take us into territory which we would not be able to support.

That is because the practical effect of the amendments would be to turn the four factors into specific tests or preconditions which would have to be met. Whatever the merits of that, it would take us beyond what was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement and beyond what the Prime Minister said in his Balmoral speech on 14th May. The Prime Minister's purpose in identifying these four factors which are reflected in Clause 3 was to provide a mechanism for clarifying whether those who stood to benefit from accelerated releases were associated with organisations that were genuinely committed to democratic non-violent means. These are crucial factors which will need to be weighed in the balance, but they are not intended to be prescriptive. The Secretary of State must be free to make a judgment in the round, taking account of all the relevant factors, including those listed in Clause 3(9).

I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and I welcome his decision not to support Amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I just wish he could be nudged a little further into not supporting Amendment No. 18, because I believe that the use of the word "and" also changes significantly the sense and changes it in a way which also takes us further than the agreement. It represents a quite significant change to link all those four factors in the way that is done.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he therefore think that the Prime Minister went beyond the agreement in the Balmoral speech when he used the word "and"?

Lord Dubs

The Prime Minister was not speaking in legislative terms.

Noble Lords

No!

Lord Dubs

The Prime Minister was speaking in general terms. Those noble Lords opposite who say "no" have been Ministers. They know exactly what I am talking about. They may feel that they have changed sides and can talk differently now but they will know better than I do, because they have had more experience in government than I have had, that there is a difference between a colloquial form of expression and converting the intent of that into a legislative form. That is the purpose when we have the Bill and that may be the reason why, grammatically, there are some differences between what the Prime Minister said and what is in the Bill. It is only in that sense that there is a distinction between the two.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I am grateful to the noble Lord for permitting me to intervene briefly. I am even more grateful to him for closing the gap between us because he and I now think alike. He is standing by the principle of putting into legislation something which was said in outline. I was saying exactly the same thing. There was a rather vague document which had been approved verbally but not with signatures. The Bill has the same status now. In my eyes it is putting into effect in detail what the delegates thought they were agreeing to on Good Friday. I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord.

Lord Dubs

I believe that the noble Lord is taking the argument further than is reasonable. He knows that he is trying it on. It was a good effort.

I would like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Cope, a question. I am no lawyer. He used the term "condition precedent". Can he tell the Committee what is the difference between that and what I would call a "precondition"?

Lord Cope of Berkeley

None, as far as I am aware.

Lord Dubs

That is fine. I am grateful to the noble Lord. At least we are talking about preconditions, which is one of the underlying difficulties. We were unhappy that there should be attempted changes to the Bill which would alter the agreement by inserting preconditions, as opposed to all the elements of the agreement being taken together.

I turn to Amendment No. 12 which concerns the use of the words "in particular". These words are important because they show that the factors in subsection (9) are not exhaustive. They are matters which the Secretary of State must take into account. She can take into account other relevant factors as well. The words do not preclude her from considering other matters. If they were removed it would suggest that the list was exhaustive, and that is not the intention.

I now turn to Amendment No. 14 which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. The amendment is helpful as it quite rightly identifies that the Secretary of State must make her decision under Clause 3(8) on the basis of the information available to her, which is the case. As was indicated in another place, that information would include information provided by the Chief Constable and the GOC. I can assure the noble Lord that it will be on that basis that any judgment is made under this subsection.

I hope that what I have said goes some way to meeting the noble Lord's wishes. I am sensitive and sympathetic towards the general thrust of his argument. I believe that the way in which the Secretary of State will give effect to that meets the point without requiring the change in terminology suggested by the noble Lord. For those reasons I am unable to support these amendments.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may ask a question which is tangential to this discussion if not exactly connected. We shall shortly be leaving the accelerated release Clause 3 and I hope that that is sufficient excuse. Will the noble Lord accept that in the context created by the Good Friday Agreement, and also by this resulting Bill, that there is now a strong and widely held perception that in fairness the cases of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher ought to be revisited now, if not by an accelerated sitting of the Life Sentence Review Board then by some other but immediate procedure?

Lord Dubs

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently reviewing this case in the light of correspondence from the guardsmen's solicitors. She has received papers today and will be considering them as soon as may be during the next few weeks. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that papers on such cases are extensive but that they must be given full and detailed consideration. The Secretary of State will consider the court papers, the previous advice from the Life Sentence Review Board, her own previous decisions and the various judicial review judgments. She will also take account of the many representations she has received regarding the case, many of which come from noble Lords who are present today. As the noble and learned Lord will know, the Secretary of State cannot prejudge any decision she may make as a consequence of this further review, but when a decision has been made, she will make it known.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

We have had an interesting further debate on the linkage between decommissioning and the release of these prisoners. At the moment, we are not making much ground, but I am still in the business of trying to persuade the Committee and the Government that that linkage should be stiffened. I am reinforced in that view by some of the speeches that have been made.

The noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred to the fact that the agreement went much wider than just the Government and included, among others, the Government of the Republic of Ireland. However, we have not yet seen the equivalent Republic of Ireland legislation on the same matter which is expected under the same agreement. The Government of the Republic of Ireland are also in the process of putting into legislative effect in their jurisdiction the same processes as we are putting into effect in our jurisdiction on the basis of the same words in the same agreement. The same factors arise in both. We have been promised sight of the Republic of Ireland legislation before Report stage. That is extremely important because it will allow us to have another view of how the agreement might be put into legislative form. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said about the way in which the agreement was arrived at, it may be that their interpretation is sightly different from ours. We should certainly have the opportunity to see it.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that we should certainly be able to speak about and debate these matters. I said at Second Reading that we are heading for an Act of Parliament, not an act of government. It is therefore Parliament's duty and the duty of each of us as Members of this House of Parliament to satisfy ourselves and to discuss all the provisions of the proposed Act of Parliament before it passes into law.

The Minister said that, on the face of it, there is little difference between us, so I have not yet entirely given up the aim of persuading the Government to move in our direction a little with regard to these amendments. Nevertheless, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 2, line 40, after ("directing") insert (", assisting").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 bring us to one of the subsections which implement one of the conditions laid down in the Bill and in the Balmoral speech. In that speech, the Prime Minister said that one of the matters to be taken into account was that no other organisation should deliberately be being used as a proxy for violence. That is translated into legislative form by Clause 3(9)(c)—but not quite fully enough, in my view. The agreement is not much help in deciding on the precise wording, but paragraph (c) states that the organisation in question should not be, directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations". Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 seek to add the words "assisting" and "or planned", so that paragraph (c), as amended by these amendments, would read that the organisation should not be "directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other organisations".

With regard to "assisting", given that regroupings of terrorist organisations are now taking place, it may be that parts of one organisation help another organisation to form itself into an effective terrorist force. If that is so, it should be provided for in this condition. It is a familiar phenomenon in Northern Irish affairs that from time to time terrorist organisations split and re-form. It comes as no surprise that that is taking place at this stage. Assistance given by one group to another can be of the greatest importance in allowing the latter to get off the ground.

The second amendment seeks to add the words "or planned". We believe that the present wording restricts the Secretary of State to looking at acts of violence that have already been committed. But a good deal of the directing or promoting may relate to acts of violence that have not yet been committed. That is of equal significance in deciding whether or not an organisation falls foul of these provisions. Putting it in practical terms, if someone is intercepted on the way to planting a bomb, that is not an act of violence that has been committed; it is an act of violence that has been planned and would have taken place but has been prevented by the alertness of the police or by other means. If that particular act has been promoted by an organisation thought otherwise to be "clean" I believe that that fact should not be ignored by the Secretary of State in reaching a judgment under subsection (8)(b). I believe that these two extra words are necessary in subsection (9)(c). I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

I am not convinced that Amendment No. 16 makes much difference to the way this part of the Bill is constructed. I believe that the matters referred to are already clearly addressed in Clause 3(9)(b). Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment takes the matter much further.

However, I have greater interest in Amendment No. 17. I believe that there is merit in the point at issue here. I agree that, as currently drafted, Clause 3(9)(c) is too restrictive, in that it is limited in range to acts of violence that are committed by other organisations. We shall explore how to give effect to the spirit of the amendment. If we can devise a form of words, we shall table a government amendment at Report stage.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

Suddenly, we appear to be getting somewhere. Given that assurance, I am delighted to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Fixed term prisoners]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("he") to end of line 27 and insert ("would otherwise have been discharged").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. The amendment raises a rather technical point. I am seeking guidance about the meaning of the particular provision rather than pressing the Government on the matter. The amendment proposes to delete the words at the end of Clause 4(4). Those words refer to what happens when a prisoner is released on licence and they help to determine the date on which his sentence is regarded as expiring and therefore the date on which the licence lapses.

During the course of today we have heard a good deal about how prisoners can be pulled back in—it sounds a very easy process but in practice it may be very hard to do—if they fall below the standard expected while on licence. Therefore, the date on which the licence comes to an end is important.

The words in the Bill as it stands suggest that the licence should come to an end when the prisoner could have been discharged on the grounds of good conduct under the prison rules; that is to say, every prisoner is assumed to have good conduct, but that will not be the case with all prisoners. Before the Bill is passed and before any of its provisions affect them, some prisoners may already have lost remission or had had conduct leading to the discharge date being changed. In that case, bad conduct should not be rewarded. I suggest therefore that the licence should lapse when the prisoner would otherwise have been discharged, taking into account bad conduct, and good conduct if he has behaved well. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he put this matter. The precedent that one remembers is the 1995 Bill, brought forward under the previous government when a similar limitation was not introduced. Clause 4(4) we think has it right, because a prisoner still serves his sentence until the licence elapses. His sentence will continue until such a time as he could have been discharged on the ground of good conduct under prison rules.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right, that even with his amendment, as it were, there would not be the result that some people might wish. For instance, the amendment would not let a sentence run on a fixed term. I give an example. If a prisoner were serving a 10-year sentence, the amendment would not ensure that the sentence ran to the last day of the 10 years, because it has no effect on the operation of Rule 30 of the prison rules, which derive their validity from Section 13(7) of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.

Again, the noble Lord is right: those prison rules automatically give a prisoner remission for good behaviour unless he misbehaves. If one leaves out the reference to "good conduct" it is arguable that bad behaviour is therefore to be ignored. Therefore we think we have this right. It just indicates clearly that his licence is determined—that is, his sentence comes to an end—at the time when he could have been discharged on the ground of good conduct under prison rules. If he is of bad conduct, under prison rules the remission will not inure to his benefit.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

It would seem that the effect that I wish to achieve is being achieved by the Bill without the necessity of my amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Fixed term prisoners: special cases]:

[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Life prisoners]:

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 21.

Page 4, line 11, leave out ("elapse") and insert ("completion").

The noble Lord said: I am not a great admirer of the drafting of this Bill. This is the first of three little amendments I have put down in the hope of improving it. I will not detain the Committee long with it. It refers to the use of the word "elapse" in Clause 6 (1). This word is not included as a substantive in Collins dictionary nor in the Concise Oxford dictionary. In the 20-volume Oxford Dictionary it does appear but it is stated as being archaic. There was a use of it in 1793 and again in 1800 but it has not occurred in literature since 1883.

I therefore propose that it is inappropriate in the Bill and that it would be preferable to change it to the word "completion". I know that my noble friend is resisting amendments put down by your Lordships, but I very much hope that he can have no objection to mine. I beg to move.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

In this group are Amendments Nos. 21 and 23, both in the name of my noble friend Lord Kilbracken. Since my noble friend Lord Dubs is not replying on this occasion, the Committee will not be surprised to know that a much more flexible approach will be found from me. (I was testing whether anyone was still awake!)

There may be some value in accepting Amendment No.23. I should like to give particular consideration to Amendments Nos. 21 and 23. Before accepting the amendments we would wish to consider further and consult with draftsmen. But if it is decided that the amendments are necessary or helpful, I can undertake to bring forward an amendment or amendments at the next stage.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

It is highly desirable that this House should not appear antique and out of date in the legislation that it passes. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has done us a service in drawing our attention to it. I am grateful for the Minister's positive reaction.

Lord Kilbracken

I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. In the light of the undertaking that has been given to me by the Minister on this vital matter, I am happy to withdraw the amendment; and also I hope to avoid the necessity of speaking to Amendment No. 23.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Life prisoners: specified dates]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 4, line 24, leave out ("1999") and insert ("10th April 1998").

The noble Lord said: I find the subsection to which this provision refers rather odd. Clause 7(1) requires that, The Secretary of State must inform the Commissioners of the length of time served by persons sentenced in Northern Ireland to imprisonment for life, and released on licence after 1982 and before 1999". I assume that the Secretary of State and her officials would be entirely willing to give such information, or any other information that the commissioners might require, to enable them to fulfil their duty without needing legislative provision to do so. I put down the amendment because the information to be given relates to the length of time served by life-sentence prisoners up to the end of 1998. I am not sure why only the length of sentence is to be given. Many more particulars are required to decide how comparable are other sentences served in the past to the sentences appropriate for those serving life sentences at present. It is not an average which is required; it is as precise an application as possible of what the individual prisoner would have served if the Bill had not existed.

On page 25 the agreement states that one of the matters which is relevant is the seriousness of the offences for which the person was convicted. In considering the seriousness of the offences for which the prisoner was convicted and comparable sentences one needs to know more than the average length of time that was served.

There is a second oddity. Why does it go to the end of 1998? I am not sure how quickly the commissioners will be in business and releasing prisoners, but it is entirely possible that some prisoners may be released—even life sentence prisoners—before the end of 1998. In that case the amount of time served by people who have been released on licence will be affected by those released early by the commissioners. That is arithmetically wrong.

In deciding what a sentence would otherwise have amounted to, the commissioners should look only at sentences which have been served by prisoners after 1982 and before the Good Friday Agreement was signed on 10th April 1998. An alternative might be to make a provision which commences after 1982 and before this Act comes into force, or something of that sort. I do not want the calculation of the lifers' terms to be affected by those released early under this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Dubs

I should perhaps begin by saying that the Life Sentence Review Board will continue to carry out its advisory role in relation to life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland as part of the normal life sentence review procedures.

The decisions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State are relevant to the commissioners in their consideration of how long a qualifying life sentence prisoner should serve. Under Clause 6 the commissioners are required to specify a day for release which marks about two-thirds of the period the prisoner would have been likely to spend in prison under the sentence.

Prisoners are usually given provisional release dates by the Secretary of State which are about 12 months after the date of the consideration of their case by the Life Sentence Review Board. After they are given their provisional release date they will spend time on a pre-release scheme which counts as part of their period in custody. By requiring that information on all releases before 1999 should be provided by the Secretary of State and taken account of by the commissioners, the Bill ensures that all provisional release decisions made up to and including 10th April may be taken account of.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Licences: conditions]:

[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 5, line 15, after ("Ireland,") insert— ("(c) that he is not involved in directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people,").

The noble Lord said: We have reached Clause 9 which deals with the licence conditions. It is interesting that the licence conditions do not include a provision about directing, promoting or assisting in violence by others. At least something reflecting the same thoughts as in Clause 3(9)(c) should apply to the licence conditions. We debated that clause a moment ago and the Minister agreed to consider the suggested improvements. Somebody who is released may not be directly supporting the terrorist organisation to which he belongs but he may be directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people. In that case, his licence should be revoked. I beg to move.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment. The direction of others does not arise only on this Bill. It arises in other emergency legislation. I remember well when that emergency legislation was passed through this House, the issue of the role of godfathers—those who direct the activities of others—took up a considerable part of our deliberations, and quite rightly so.

It may be that the Minister will reassure us that Clause (9)(1)(b) is intended to cover this issue of the direction of activities of others, but I should like to hear that in making up my mind about the amendment.

Viscount Brookeborough

I too support the amendment. One fears that we may reach a situation in which, while there are fewer groups which continue with terrorism, there are still a great number of weapons in the public domain. There will be people, if there are not already, who will commit crimes which are close to terrorism but not terrorism. Some of those people may have lived off their ill-gotten gains for many years and they will then argue that what they did was not terrorism as such. Therefore, I support this amendment to include other acts which may be closely connected.

Lord Dubs

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Holme, the assurance which he seeks. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the matters covered by it are already fully and adequately contained in the terms of the licence set out in Clause 9(1)(b), which make a prisoner subject to the licence condition, that he does not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland". That quite adequately covers the activity referred to by Members of the Committee. I contend that the amendment is not required.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

Is the Minister saying that an individual becoming concerned in the commission, preparation and so on is the same as helping somebody else to do it? Perhaps it is. If it is, my amendment may be unnecessary but I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation of that.

Lord Desai

I believe that in Clause 9, the word "instigation" covers what the noble Lord wants covered. That is what instigating is all about.

Lord Dubs

I thank my noble friend Lord Desai. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is yes.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Accelerated release]:

Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 6, line 15, after ("is") insert ("whichever is the later of—(a)")

The noble Lord said: This is a very simple and straightforward amendment, as I hope have been all the other amendments which I have put forward this evening. It is designed to ensure that there is reasonable equity between one group of prisoners and another in connection with the sentences which they are intended to serve.

There is a possibility that a distinction will be made between prisoners who have been convicted before and after the coming into effect of this Bill. This amendment merely seeks to ensure that those who are convicted after the coming into effect of the Bill are treated no better than those who were convicted of similar offences and sentenced before the Bill came into effect. That is the intended purpose of the amendments and I hope that they will lead to that effect. I beg to move.

10 p.m.

Lord Dubs

When I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List, I was not entirely sure what it was intended to achieve. I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the reasons behind his amendment. It is important that this part of the Bill be coherent. For that reason, the Government have brought forward their own amendments, which will be considered soon.

Under the agreement, those prisoners who remain in custody two years after the commencement of this legislation may be released. Clause 10 allows account to be taken of those prisoners arrested and charged after the commencement of the legislation, those prisoners arrested and charged before the commencement of the legislation but sentenced after, as well as those sentenced before the commencement of the legislation so that in each case no prisoner is released before he has served two years; and no prisoner is released before a date two years after the commencement of the Bill. I believe that that is the best way and a way that is fully in accordance with the agreement. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that his amendments are unnecessary.

Lord Tebbit

I am still not totally certain that my amendments are unnecessary. It is possible that a prisoner who has been convicted not that long before the coming into effect of the Bill will serve, let us say, two years and six months. It is also possible that, immediately afterwards, a convicted prisoner may serve two years having been sentenced to the same length of imprisonment. That would seem to me to be entirely unfair as between the two prisoners. I wish to ensure that, merely because of an arbitrary circumstance of the date on which the conviction takes place, prisoners will not be treated differently when the court has sentenced them to a similar sentence.

Lord Dubs

Without any prejudice at all, perhaps I may consider the noble Lord's point. I believe that I am right in what I say but, just to be doubly sure, I should like to check on the position. If I am wrong, perhaps I may get back to the noble Lord on the matter.

Lord Tebbit

I thank the Minister for what he says. I am entirely happy to accept his assurance that he will look again at the matter. Perhaps we may return to it on Report. Although I am sure that we are at one in our intention, we must ensure that the Bill carries out that intention, which I believe we both share.

Lord Dubs

I should point out to the noble Lord that, of course, what I have said is subject to the reservation that the agreement does have a two year cut-off period. I want to examine what the noble Lord said to make sure that what the agreement is intended to achieve is not being achieved through the argument that the noble Lord used. If it does achieve a two year cut-off, I am afraid that there may be some differences between prisoners sentenced before and after a certain date. However, that depends on whether or not they fall within the terms of the agreement.

Lord Tebbit

I entirely understand what the Minister says. I realise that he is back on his mantra of the agreement. However, I am back on my mantra of justice. I appreciate that there will be times when the agreement and justice are incompatible. Under those circumstances, if we cannot make them compatible, it is possible that I shall seek to divide the House on the matter. However, I need not do so tonight. I am sure that we shall try to find a way through the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 6, line 19, leave out subsection (7).

The noble Lord said: Government Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 and the consequential amendments to Clause 18—that is, Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42—are intended to correct an oversight with a government amendment to the Bill made in another place. Clause 10(8) of the Bill was added to the legislation in another place to take account of prisoners who may have been convicted of a qualifying offence prior to the commencement of the Bill but who had spent time unlawfully at large. As the Bill had originally been drafted, such prisoners might have been eligible for release before they had served two years in custody. That was not the intention and so the subsection in question was added.

However, in adding the subsection, the Government overlooked that Clause 10(4) to (6) were variable by order of the Secretary of State. The variation of these subsections was a direct consequence of the terms of the agreement which allows for flexibility in relation to the two-year cut-off depending on the circumstances and progress towards a peaceful society.

Although this amendment affects only a small number of cases, it ensures that all cases are treated on a similar basis and that no prisoner is released before the date of the cut-off, set under Clause 10(4) as two years from the commencement of the Bill, and no prisoner, no matter when he is committed to custody, serves a shorter period in custody than the period between the commencement of the legislation and the cut-off, that is, under Clause 10(5), (6) and (8), two years. I commend the Government's Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 40, 41 and 42 to the Chamber. I beg to move.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I am not sure that I am entirely happy about the Secretary of State being able to change the minimum of two years. I am not quite sure in which circumstances he would wish to reduce the minimum of two years. It might be helpful if the Minister were to spell that out to us. However, I have another, more technical difficulty with these amendments. As I understand it, Clause 10(7) will permit the Secretary of State to amend Clause 10(8). Similarly, Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 refer to Clause 10(9). As far as I can see, there will not be a Clause 10(9). Perhaps those amendments are defective in their drafting.

Lord Dubs

I am assured that the figures are correct and that everything is proper and in order. Without spelling it out in detail—I am sure the noble Lord would not want me to do that—I have received confirmation that everything is as it is supposed to be.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 6, line 24, at end insert— ("(9) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsections (4) to (8).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Interpretation: prisoners and sentences]:

Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 7, line 7, leave out ("each").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 32 I refer also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 which are grouped with it. This is an attempt to increase the fairness with regard to multiple sentences. As I read the Bill—I may be wrong about this—if a prisoner has two consecutive sentences of five years or more for qualifying offences, they are to be treated as one. Therefore the prisoner with two sentences of exactly five years would serve one-third of 10 years; that is to say, three years and four months. That is assuming he is not overtaken by the accelerated release provisions under Clause 10.

Unless an amendment on the lines of my own is accepted, a prisoner with one sentence of five years and another of, say, four years, would serve one-third of five years but a half, under previous legislation, of the four years; that is to say, three years and eight months. That is four months longer than for the first prisoner, who had the longer sentence. That would seem unfair on the man with the shorter sentence. I should be grateful for the Minister's comment.

Lord Dubs

The paper that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State placed in the Library on 20th April made clear that only sentences of five years or more would be considered under the Bill. The effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would be to allow consecutive sentences of less than five years to be discounted if imposed in respect of a qualifying offence and at the same time as the imposition of a qualifying offence of five years or more. That would go beyond what the Government have said they will do. However, if the noble Lord wishes me to do so, I will undertake to consider the matter further before Report.

Lord Cope of Berkeley

I think the matter should be considered before Report. I realise that both the agreement and the paper have taken on a quality of holy writ in relation to this matter, even though, as previously discussed, clearly there were detailed matters which are extremely unlikely to have entered into the minds of those who were considering them before Good Friday. However, in view of the noble Lord's undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Inadmissibility]:

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 35:

Page 7, line 41, at end insert ("or a co-accused").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36.

Both of these amendments seek to explore what is intended by subsection (4) of Clause 13, which provides that subsection (2) of the clause, shall not prevent the admission of evidence adduced on behalf of the accused".

Two issues arise. The first is the need to clarify that an accused man would be able to lead in evidence in his defence at a criminal trial evidence and information provided to the commissioners by another party and covered by the provisions of Clause 13(1).

The second issue requiring clarification is that, if the person who provided the information was one accused, would subsection (4) permit a co-accused to lead that information as evidence in his defence even though the prosecutor could not lead it as evidence upon which the prosecution would wish to found against the first accused, who was the person who had provided the information to the commissioner?

I can well see that the two issues that I raise fall within the policy that is intended in subsection (4) of Clause 13. Notwithstanding the character that the agreement and the document are acquiring as the hours go by, it does not seem to me that either document deals with this issue. I should therefore welcome clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

The noble and learned Lord is quite right in his understanding as to the meaning of Clause 13(4). I am happy to give that clarification.

As has been observed earlier, there are prohibitions in Clause 13(2) against the admission in distinct, discrete proceedings of anything that might have been said for the purposes of these arrangements in Clause 13(1). However, the saver is in Clause 13(4); statements made to the commissioners which may not be admissible in the proceedings that I have described may well be admissible as evidence if adduced on behalf of the accused. The noble and learned Lord is right in his surmise. That would include a person who is a co-accused. I am happy to reaffirm in relation to subsection (4) of Clause 13 that, when one speaks of the admission of evidence, that may be the defendant's or applicant's own evidence; the evidence of a co-accused; or indeed—the noble and learned Lord is right—a party who is not even the subject of the proceedings. I hope that that has reaffirmed the noble and learned Lord in his tentative view that Clause 13(4) is wide enough to cover what we both recognise as being necessary.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. On the basis that my amendment is unnecessary, I seek leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]

Clause 13 agreed to.

10.15 p.m.

Clause 14 [Information for victims]:

Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 37.

Page 7, line 47, at end insert ("or has been released under section 4 or 6").

The noble Lord said: In Clause 14 we move on to the question of providing information for victims. The clause begins by stating: The Secretary of State shall provide a statement … if … he believes— that the person about whom the statement is sought is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Northern Ireland for a fixed term of at least five years". However, subsection (3) provides that such a statement shall state, if his application has been granted, whether he has been released and the date on which he has a right to be released". Clearly, if a prisoner has been released, he is no longer serving a sentence of imprisonment, for a fixed term of at least five years or for life", as required by subsection (1)(a). It therefore seems clear that the words, or has been released under section 4 or 6", should be added at the end of Clause 14(1)(a). I beg to move.

Lord HoIme of Cheltenham

I rise briefly to support the amendment. Given the importance of Clause 14 and the fact that the Committee has agreed that victims should be notified unless it creates, a danger to the safety of any person", the amendment aligns the preamble with the detail in subsection (3). I believe that this is a sensible amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I entirely sympathise with the point made by both noble Lords. The point is already covered. As the noble Lord rightly observed, under subsection (3)(c) of Clause 14, the Secretary of State has a duty to provide a statement giving information about prisoners who have been released. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, stated that, if someone has been released on licence, that person is no longer serving a sentence. A person who has been released and is on licence is still serving a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of Clause 14(1)(a). I am happy to give that reassurance, which I recognise that it was entirely proper to seek.

Lord Kilbracken

I must point out to my noble friend that paragraph (c) does not say anything about being released on licence; it merely says, whether he has been released". The words "on licence" have been added by my noble friend.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

No, my Lords. A prisoner can only be released on licence. If a prisoner is released on licence under this scheme, he is still serving a sentence of imprisonment.

Lord Kilbracken

I am grateful to my noble friend. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 38.

Page 8, line 1, leave out ("in Northern Ireland").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 38, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 39. The purpose of this pair of amendments is simple. Clause 14 already obliges the Secretary of State, subject to one or two safeguards, to give information about early release to victims, or to the families of victims, where the sentence was passed in Northern Ireland. No doubt as a result of an oversight—and I understand that Clause 14 was inserted into the Bill at a fairly late stage—no such provision is made for the victims of terrorist atrocities committed in England, Scotland or Wales or for their families—for example, the families of the two men murdered at Canary Wharf. That is quite illogical and, more importantly, wrong. These amendments attempt to rectify the omission, which, as I said, I am sure was due to an oversight. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

I wish to support my noble friend Lord Monson in what he said both in regard to the past tense and in the future though, strictly speaking, that does not apply to the terminology of this Bill. However, offences have been committed in Great Britain and unfortunately others may be at the planning stage. We are therefore all in the front line together.

Viscount Brookeborough

Further to what my noble friend Lord Monson said, offences have also been committed in Northern Ireland where the perpetrators have been caught just across the border in the Republic. They have then been convicted of those offences. It is important therefore that prisoners who are released from the Republic under any early release scheme which may affect victims in the north should come under this provision.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

Again, I sympathise entirely with the purpose behind the amendment. My advice is that it is not necessary because it is already dealt with in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3. That paragraph extends to offences committed in Great Britain the duty of the Secretary of State to provide information to victims which is set out under Clause 14. Therefore I recognise that all the concerns raised are legitimate, but my advice is that the matter is already covered in paragraph 7 of Schedule 3.

Lord Monson

I am grateful to both my noble friends who supported me and to the Minister for his explanation. I shall study what he said and will not return to the matter if I am satisfied that no further action is required. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Orders and rules]:

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 40:

Page 9, line 6, leave out ("10(7)") and insert ("10(9)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 41:

Page 9, line 8, leave out ("10(7)") and insert ("10(9)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 9, line 18, leave out ("10(7)") and insert ("10(9)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 43:

After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—