§ 3.50 p.m.
§ Read a third time.
§ Clause 3 [Applications]:
§
Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert (", but no application by a prisoner who is or has been a member of a terrorist or proscribed organisation shall be processed before any application made by a prisoner who is not and has not been a member of such an organisation")
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in earlier debates there was a much used phrase, "We must not send the wrong signals". Care has been taken in drafting this amendment and Amendment No. 2 to ensure that the signal transmitted—
§ Baroness Farrington of RibbletonMy Lords, with respect, perhaps I could ask noble Lords to leave the Chamber more quietly because we cannot hear the noble Lord.
§ Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, the signal transmitted by these two amendments could not possibly be regarded as sending a wrong signal to any prisoner or terrorist organisation, not even those who organised this week's mortar attack on Newry Police Station. Whether they were assisted or supplied by the Provisional IRA or one of its many sub-contractors, they are not likely to be greatly intimidated by these two amendments since the prisoners referred to are in a very different time frame. The one thing they have in common is that the terrorist organisations and their numerous do-it-yourself sub-contractors perceive the Bill to be an amnesty. It is pointless to try to alter their perception. It is pointless to shake their belief that as they improve their techniques and increase their atrocities over the next decade the activists within their ranks will run no great risk, even if they are apprehended, convicted and imprisoned. They will be convinced that a future Secretary of State will come to either House and ask Parliament to approve one simple amendment to this Bill which is shortly to become an Act. The amendment would alter the date of the qualifying offence to 10th April 2003. It is a simple amendment: an alteration of date.
Amendment No. 1, and Amendment No. 2 to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, creates no hardship or disadvantage for those prisoners who have 889 been convicted of terrorist acts who will benefit from the Bill. Nor does the amendment disadvantage the increasing number of terrorists who have already embarked on a long range campaign—and I quote Mr. Adams—of "doing what they do best".
The Bill prepares for the very early release of prisoners. There can surely be no great grounds of complaint over consideration being given to applications made by a prisoner who has never been a member of any terrorist organisation and thus qualifies with top marks under the four conditions for priority over all other applicants. I beg to move.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, I shall seek to move my amendment, Amendment No. 2, on which I hope that the House may divide later. I have no wish to prolong proceedings on the Bill since the House has a great deal of important business today. But like the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I wish to say a few words about the principle of the Bill as a background to the amendment.
One does not have to doubt the good intentions of those who brought the Bill forward, or those who support it. Its objective is to secure peace in Northern Ireland, but it introduces grave injustices. It is part of a process of the appeasement of wicked men responsible for the most appalling crimes. I have a strong feeling, as does the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that in the light of the bombs which have been discovered just in time recently, of the mortar attack, and the murder by an IRA body of some kind of one of its own religion—if one can say that the IRA has a religion beyond the religion of violence—sooner or later a government amendment will alter the date in the Bill and bring into its provisions those people who are committing and will shortly commit other such crimes.
There could not be a better example than this Bill of the ends being held to justify the means. The means of this Bill is the reward of criminals; the end is peace. I do not think that we can be too sure that that end will be achieved by these means.
Against that background it is now generally agreed—I realise that Ministers cannot say too much without risk of being held to have prejudiced themselves on the issue—that the treatment of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright always seen as controversial, is now seen as a further and serious injustice. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has done the cause of justice a signal service in the way in which he brought his Motion to the House the night before last. It would surprise us all, I think now, if either by the route which he promoted, or by the Secretary of State's current review, Fisher and Wright were not soon released. Indeed, I am told by journalists that leaks—I hasten to say, no doubt unauthorised—from the Northern Ireland Office say that they will be released before the end of the next month.
As we know—the Minister has told us—he hopes that the release of the terrorist prisoners will commence at the beginning of September. If my noble friend's route is the belt, my amendment is the braces of a belt and braces approach to the matter. We know that the Petition 890 will lie upon the Secretary of State's desk in just the same way as does the present review. I doubt whether any of us would wish those soldiers to be left to use the provisions of this Bill to secure their release. But if none of the other three possible routes which were laid out by the Minister leads to their release, they may well be driven, and are entitled, to use the provisions of the Bill. If so, the applications of men in their circumstances should be accorded priority over those of terrorists. Nothing less would be fair.
That is what the amendment would secure. It would also secure an opportunity for Members of another place to consider these matters afresh and express their own view upon them in the light of our debate the night before last on my noble friend's Motion. I think that all of us who were present for that Motion, or who have read the account in the official record, will realise that there are grave doubts about the safety of the conviction of those two men.
It would be helpful if it were not seen to be just this House supporting the review of the conviction and sentence of those two men. It would be very helpful if we could send this Bill back to the other place, amended in this way, so that the Members of the other place could express their view, which I believe would be overwhelmingly akin to that which has been expressed in this House.
§ 4 p.m.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, it is not possible to speak to either Amendments Nos. 1 or 2 without also speaking to the sister amendment relating to implementation, Amendment No. 13. All these amendments are opposed because they are contrary to the best interests of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright as regards release as soon as possible, as now protected on the Humble Address debate. For it was then accepted unanimously by your Lordships that release under the Clause 3 linkage, to which I objected in any event, was not appropriate and that release under the Royal Prerogative was in no way inhibited. The exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was a truly memorable, constructive speech.
As regards Amendment No. 13—I do not know whether your Lordships have seen the Belfast agreement—to delay until 31st August—
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. It will save the time of the House and perhaps his energy if I say that I do not intend to move Amendment No. 13.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has his name to the amendment, any other noble Lord can move it and I shall be very brief about it. At paragraph 6 on page 10, the document provides that the British and Irish Governments will take all necessary steps to facilitate the decommissioning process to include bringing the relevant schemes into force by the end of June.
One of the relevant schemes is the mechanism to provide for the accelerated process for release—I refer to page 35—which is reflected in Clause 3. The Bill 891 came to this House only at the end of June. The only conceivable reason for postponing an Act beyond the Recess is to afford time in which Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 can be implemented.
I keep coming back to Guardsmen Fisher and Wright because I am much more interested in them than in any other aspect of the debate. As far as they are concerned, Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 directly affect their interests as to release; whereas before, the amendment to Clause 21, which is now Clause 22, was withdrawn in Committee, negatived on Report, albeit supported by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, if only to make a strong signal for release as soon as possible. That indirectly affected their interests as to release, but the signal is now on its way as a result of the humble Address. The form of the amendments has changed, but the substance remains precisely the same.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to Clause 3 import the same type of precondition to the implementation of the Belfast agreement as reflected in this Clause 3 linkage. If this is accepted, it would inevitably deprive the Government of moral authority to continue to foster the peace process. The argument was deployed in Committee on 6th July and at the Report on 16th July and I have no intention of boring your Lordships further by seeking to deploy it on the third time of asking.
I comment not in any sense of seeking to be unkind or controversial, but Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 13 embark on the plotted course of political confrontation. They cannot be accepted by the Government; the Government have made it totally plain that they cannot accept them and why they cannot accept them. I say with respect to my noble friend Lord Tebbit—he knows that I have a great respect for him—who said that the Government would introduce an amendment to this Bill in the Commons, that elephants might fly! The Government will never do it; they have made perfectly plain the fact that they cannot and will not do it. Therefore, to what purpose are these amendments to be supported, if they would hazard peace in the Province?
In conclusion, in the humble Address debate, noble Lords on all sides of the House decided to eschew confrontation and follow the path of persuasion in the best interests of these guardsmen who, although not named in Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, are inevitably involved. As these amendments cannot serve the best interests of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, to what constructive purpose shall your Lordships support them?
§ Lord Renwick of CliftonMy Lords, this house has devoted many hours of discussion, and rightly so, to the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, to whom these amendments clearly refer. They have been before us in a variety of guises and I admire the tenacity of the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Molyneaux, in pursuit of a good cause, but not the method by which they are seeking to pursue it now.
As others have said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is reviewing these cases and a decision can be expected by the end of August. Meanwhile, we have just voted a Petition to Her Majesty asking her to exercise the Royal Prerogative of Mercy 892 in these cases, which no doubt will also be referred to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has the power to order the release of these guardsmen and my noble friend the Minister will have taken the universal conviction from all parts of the House that she should use it.
I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that the two guardsmen will be released before any convicted terrorist receives accelerated release under the provisions of this Bill. I entirely agree with him, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and others that this is an injustice which must be righted and I am convinced that very soon it will be righted.
However, that is not a reason to amend the Bill before us today. The Bill gives effect to an agreement negotiated between the parties in Northern Ireland which affords the best hope for a more peaceful future for the Province than in the previous three decades. We cannot now add new conditions without those two being negotiated with the parties and starting the whole negotiation over again—and that, clearly, we are not going to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has expressed serious reservations, to say the least, about the agreement. Certainly, he gives the impression that he does not expect it to succeed. But the great majority of the people of Northern Ireland, who voted on the matter, do support the agreement and they very much want it to be given the chance to succeed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that the agreement will not end terrorism, as we have all too clearly seen from the actions of groups on both sides, including the tragedy at Ballymoney in the past few days.
However, there is now at last the real prospect of drastically reducing terrorism and public support for it, of reducing these organisations to the character of splinter groups without significant support and of marginalising the men of violence and extremists on both sides, thereby giving the people of Northern Ireland the prospect of a better and more peaceful future. I do not for one moment believe that the House would wish to do anything that would compromise the chances of achieving that essential goal.
I am convinced that there is near universal support in the House for the agreement, as there is for the release of the guardsmen, and that the House will understand that it would be irresponsible to seek to introduce new conditions now. I also believe that it would be wholly inappropriate in any way to link the cases of these two guardsmen, who in the course of their duties made a fatal mistake, to those of prisoners convicted of premeditated acts of terrorism. I very much hope that the noble Lords will, on reflection, decide to withdraw their amendments. I must urge noble Lords not to support them.
§ Lord Steel of AikwoodMy Lords, perhaps I may say a few words on behalf of my noble friends. I strongly support, as do all my noble friends, the campaign for the release of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was kind enough to pay a justified tribute to my noble 893 friend Lord Thomas of Gresford for his speech on this subject on our behalf on Monday night. So there is no doubt on that question. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, I also admire the tenacity of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in seeking yet another occasion to press the case.
However, the fundamental position that we take on these Benches is the one already articulated; namely, that these amendments cannot be supported by us principally because they lay down conditions which are not contained in the Belfast agreement. We must remind ourselves that that agreement, which was finally concluded on Good Friday, was painfully and painstakingly negotiated. No one party should seek unilaterally to make changes to that agreement lest the whole agreement should unravel. Indeed, it is a delicate enough instrument as it is and we should leave it as it is.
§ Lord BramallMy Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has tabled his amendment with the best possible motives and with the best interests of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright at heart. However, having had that very full debate on Monday night, which ended with the unanimous agreement of your Lordships' House to send a humble Address to Her Majesty asking for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, and also having been assured by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the full weight of your Lordships' unanimous view would be passed to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is in a position to exercise that prerogative, I wonder whether we are not muddying the waters by trying to link in any way the, hopefully, imminent release of these guardsmen with the future release of some terrorists for purely political purposes.
§ Lord Merlyn-ReesMy Lords, we should all listen carefully to those who have spoken so far in the debate, and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who has led so forcefully in recent weeks on the case of the two guardsmen. The three amendments now before us are linked to the release of the guardsmen and I do not wish to add to the words that have been spoken or, indeed, to the words of warning about voting on the amendments and perhaps passing them.
I should like to raise a practical point about the amendments. Amendment No. 1, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, refers to,
a prisoner who is or has been a member of a terrorist or proscribed organisation",while the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, refers, in much the same terms, to membership of such organisations. But how does one prove membership? In my time in Northern Ireland I was advised that membership was usually a makeweight. I had a membership card for the Labour Party in my wallet, but these people do not go around carrying a membership card on their person which will actually prove membership of a proscribed or terrorist organisation. Indeed, such membership is almost impossible to prove. That is a weakness in the amendments which would make it difficult for the Secretary of State when deciding what orders she should 894 make in connection with release. It would be almost impossible to prove the membership of those who are referred to in the Bill. That is another weakness in the amendments, and I hope that the House will take that into account.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, I should point out to him that that is why my amendment also refers to supporters. That is the expression used in the Bill and it is from there that I have imported it.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Lord DunleathMy Lords, I have not spoken to the previous amendments on the subject tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, either in Committee or on Report, as I am aware of the possible complications that such amendments might cause. However, I firmly believe that the mood of your Lordships' House last Thursday showed much sympathy with the amendment as then tabled. Certainly, it had the support of the Opposition Front Bench. It was clear on these Benches at least that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, intended to withdraw the amendment on Report. I believe I speak for many noble Lords when I say that the confusion that followed, which led to the amendment being negatived, was most unsatisfactory.
I was sorry that other commitments in Northern Ireland prevented me from being present when the humble Address was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on Monday evening regarding Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. However, I have read the Hansard report with care and I am delighted that there may now be a further lever that can be used to secure the release of these two soldiers.
Much has been made, and rightly so, by noble Lords who have served in Northern Ireland of the fact that they might have found themselves in exactly the same situation as Fisher and Wright. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, said, "There but for the grace of God go I". It has crossed my mind that the continued incarceration of the two guardsmen could have an effect on soldiers currently serving in Northern Ireland, whereby the implications of their opening fire could just cause that moment of hesitation which would give the terrorists a tactical advantage, leading to the injury or death of a member of the security forces. That would be a truly deplorable situation.
All of us who have served in Northern Ireland will be aware of the paramount importance attached to the Rules of Engagement as summarised in the yellow card. It is quite clear on this occasion that the warnings were given in accordance with the yellow card to McBride and that, as he chose to ignore them, the guardsmen were entitled to fire at him believing that he was carrying a coffee jar bomb. McBride was offered an opportunity to surrender, which is never, ever given to the many off-duty, part-time UDR soldiers or RUC officers who have been shot, maimed or blown up by the IRA.
Quite clearly, there has been a miscarriage of justice, and it is quite wrong that Guardsmen Fisher and Wright should continue to be locked up in prison.
895 The amendments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Tebbit, today give Parliament, both your Lordships' House and another place, an input and a chance to think again; and, indeed, a say in the future of these two soldiers. It is a further mechanism available if their release continues to be unnecessarily delayed.
I hope that the Minister will have more encouraging news for us today—more encouraging indeed than the previously announced date for the Secretary of State's review being completed by the end of August. Moreover, can the Minister give the House any reasons whatever why Guardsmen Fisher and Wright cannot be released into the care of their regiment, pending the pronouncement by the Secretary of State?
§ Lord Davies of CoityMy Lords, in opposing these three amendments, I should like to concentrate my arguments on Amendment No. 2. I believe that everyone in this House recognises that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has consistently and well-meaningly advanced a crusade on behalf of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. However, the purpose of my arguments is, it is to be hoped, to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, to withdraw his amendment.
We have had a debate about the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and there has been widespread support for it. We know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is reviewing the circumstances. Everyone is sympathetic with the issue surrounding the imprisonment at present of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright; but in our determination to secure their release we should ask ourselves whether we ought to be doing so as a condition of passing a Bill that is in fact intended to bring about peace in Northern Ireland, which we have not had for decades. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, used some very emotive terms. He talked about rewarding criminals and drew attention to past crimes. We are all aware of those circumstances. But is it not our objective to prevent criminality in the future and prevent those horrendous crimes occurring again? That is the case we have to address.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that this will be the belt that is added to the braces. I do not share that view. I think that if we attempt to secure the release of the guardsmen as a simple condition of passing this Bill, it will become a propaganda weapon in the hands of those who are opposed to peace in Northern Ireland. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, think hard and long about that. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord RowallanMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, is absolutely right. This is an emotive subject. However, it is most emotive of all for Guardsmen Fisher and Wright who are languishing in gaol when other people may be released. They must applaud the efforts of my noble friends Lord Tebbit and Lord Campbell of Alloway to obtain their release. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, is now trying to do that too. The guardsmen must feel sad that no one thought of them when the Good Friday agreement was drawn up. I hope that the Minister can answer my next question. How was it possible for the Prime Minister of 896 this country to go to Saudi Arabia and prevail upon the government there to free two nurses who had been convicted of murder whereas his own Government cannot be prevailed upon to release two guardsmen who, we now gather, were convicted of murder on slightly dodgy grounds while protecting the interests of this country?
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, last Thursday, when a similar amendment was moved, I would have been inclined to support it. However, I think we have to take into account the fact that a Motion was passed unanimously, without a vote, on Monday which attempts to invoke the Royal Prerogative. We must listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and others have said; namely, that we must not upset the agreement in any way. They say that the agreement is sacrosanct. I can understand that, but before I decide how I vote today I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to assure me that that operates on both sides and that if we see this agreement as sacrosanct, Her Majesty's Government will also insist that the Government of the Irish Republic consider it to be sacrosanct too, and that there will be no alteration to the Good Friday agreement by the Government of the Irish Republic. I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer that.
§ Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, I support Amendment No. 2, which I prefer to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, because its wording is more limited and it avoids the difficulty to which the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, drew attention. As already stated, your Lordships have discussed the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright several times recently and the Minister is in no doubt about the strong views held on the subject in all parts of the House. In particular, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway initiated an extremely moving and memorable debate in which an important decision was made by this House. However, like my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I wish to see belt and braces in this matter.
This is, of course, a much more moderate amendment than the amendment that my noble friend Lord Tebbit moved to this Bill the other night. This amendment would not hold up the whole Bill—that was the point made the other night—but seeks to establish the order in which the cases should be considered by the review commission. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Tebbit does not make it a condition that the guardsmen should be released; it simply ensures that their cases are processed before other cases.
It has been said that this amendment is contrary to the agreement. I have looked again at the agreement and I cannot see anything contrary to the point made in the amendment. Certainly I do not think anyone has suggested—I do not think anyone would suggest—that it would be contrary to the agreement if the two guardsmen were to be released by another process. I refer to the process that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway suggested the other night, which the House supported, or the Secretary of State's review, which was in train before that, which might lead to their 897 release. If they were released under one of those processes before anyone else's case was considered under this Bill—as far as I can see, the chance of any case under this Bill having completed its consideration before those processes are exhausted is small indeed—I do not think anyone in this House would claim that to be contrary to the agreement.
The agreement does not specifically provide for any particular order in which the cases should be considered. Without the amendment the Bill leaves the question to the rules to be introduced under Schedule 2. There will be some rules which will settle the order in which the cases are considered. I take it that no one will complain that that is against the agreement. All the amendment does is settle the order in favour of the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright being considered first. Nor do I believe that acceptance of the amendment would seriously delay the consideration of other cases. I do not believe that the consideration of the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright would take the commission long, certainly not so as to make any serious dent in the timetable.
However, I know that many noble Lords, and indeed others, while wanting to see the guardsmen released as soon as possible, hate the idea that they should be released under the terms of this Bill. They believe that that would equate the guardsmen with terrorists. I share that distaste to some extent and I certainly understand why people think that way. However, I do not think that that should prevent this route being used by the guardsmen, if necessary. It seems to me that under the Bill they are entirely entitled to apply. The Bill requires that a prisoner should be serving a sentence for a scheduled offence, as the two guardsmen are.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Of course, they are entitled to apply, but this House has decided unanimously that it is wholly inappropriate that they should.
§ Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's confirmation that they are entitled to apply. I shall return to that point in a moment. Certainly, I did not think that the House decided the other night on the method suggested by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in preference to another method. The House decided to support the method proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—it was entirely right that it should—but that does not prevent the braces being there as well as the belt.
I was saying that the guardsmen are entitled to apply in the sense that they are serving a sentence for a scheduled offence. The other requirement of the Bill is that they should not belong to a terrorist organisation. They do not, and they never have belonged to a terrorist organisation. Therefore, I do not believe that it would take the review commissioners 30 seconds to decide that they were "qualifying prisoners" in the words of the Bill. So the only consideration for their immediate release by this route would be whether they would otherwise serve half as long again as they have already served. I cannot believe that a decision on that would take the commissioners more than another 30 seconds.
898 Regardless of the fact that other methods of release are being pursued, I do not believe that these men should hold back from applying, when the opportunity offers itself, to be released in this manner. They would indeed be wise to go for the braces, as it were, as well as the belt.
Those who have served the forces of law and order have as much right to benefit from the agreement as those who have opposed them. Most of those who will be released under the terms of the Bill have opposed law and order. They have been terrorists, even though the Bill requires that they should no longer belong to a terrorist organisation in order to qualify for release. Because I believe that those who have served the forces of law and order have as much right as anybody to benefit from the provisions of the Bill, I support Amendment No. 2.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Viscount BrookeboroughMy Lords, the argument has reached such a high level on constitutional and legal matters that it is very difficult to see the wood for the trees. What we are talking about is the release of the two Scots guardsmen as soon as possible. We have been told by the Minister that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have made her decision within the next few weeks. Following the humble Address to Her Majesty on Monday, that would undoubtedly mean that this amendment would no longer be required.
However, if one looks at the history of (dare one say it?) the reward for terrorism and what has gone on in the past few years, it would appear to most of us that the appeasement of terrorism has normally been at the expense of most other events. For instance, we have received no weapons and the IRA has now conveniently given them away to splinter groups, so we may never receive them. People in Northern Ireland are afraid that if we do not take a "belt and braces" approach, we shall be let down yet again by what appears to be a reward for terrorism and a delay in all other matters affecting the normal law-abiding people of the Province.
I am inclined to support the amendment for that reason—being, as I hope, part of that law-abiding community, being involved in it and knowing the feelings of people about both this Government and the previous one, who have tended to give something for nothing in return. This time, we want Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, and we have a right to that.
§ Lord GlentoranMy Lords, I have not spoken on this matter before but, having been a guardsman for 12 years, I believe that it would be nothing less than awful if the two guardsmen had to apply for release under the terms of this Bill. In the 1970s, I was faced with a decision while travelling quickly in a "patchy" country, as it was termed, at night when it was wet, whether or not to drive through a road-block. I drove through it. They did not shoot at me. I am still here today. Had they done so, they might well have been within their rights. Security forces had been killed in that area in the previous week, I was on the list and I could not take that risk.
899 The guardsmen were doing their best in appallingly difficult conditions. I was horrified when they were condemned, particularly in this country. If they had to stoop to apply for release under this Bill, it would be a blooming disgrace to the British judiciary and all that we stand for.
§ Viscount SlimMy Lords, I feel that we have rather missed the point; namely, to achieve the release of the guardsmen as soon as possible. No timescale has been given. During the debate the other evening we were given four or five options by the Minister. But through the judicial process they could take years. We are trying to secure the release of the guardsmen now. No one from the Front Benches on either side of this House has indicated a way forward so as to do that quickly. I hope that the Minister now has something else to say. Frankly, his remarks the other evening were not impressive. The procedures referred to are lengthy; they could go on for months. This House deserves a speedy reply, and the speedy release of these two very brave guardsmen.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)My Lords, I appreciate yet again the strength of feeling shown on all sides of the House about these two guardsmen. They do not need to apply under the Bill. I have explained—and shall repeat for the sake of avoidance of doubt—that the procedures under the Bill are of course open to them. However, the Secretary of State has indicated to the guardsmen that she is currently reviewing their cases. She has also indicated that she will be able to arrive at a conclusion and, if necessary, have consulted the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge by the end of next month. That is not far away. Of course, every day in custody is too long for people who are detained. But in terms of the Secretary of State's commitment to arriving at a decision quickly, I believe that that is still a clear avenue. I do not believe that it will take years, as the noble Lord said. But that is—
§ Baroness Denton of WakefieldMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He mentioned that the Secretary of State will consult the Lord Chief Justice if necessary. Last week, I understood the Minister to say that that was necessary. Has the situation now changed?
§ Lord DubsNo, my Lords, it has not changed. If the Secretary of State is minded to release the guardsmen, the procedure is that she consults the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge. My words, "if necessary", were not necessary in themselves. I thank the noble Baroness for correcting me.
I suggest that these are not lengthy procedures in the scheme of things. I appreciate, as does the Secretary of State, the concern of this House that a quick decision should be arrived at.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two specific points that were made before dealing with the substance of the amendments. There is no suggestion whatever of changing the qualifying date of 10th April. Indeed, this is Third Reading and we should have needed an 900 amendment to that effect if that were to be on the face of the Bill. There is absolutely no intention on the part of the Government to change that qualifying date.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, spoke of the appeasement of wicked men. Yes, the terrorists are wicked men. People who bomb, shoot and murder innocent people are wicked men. But this Bill is not an attempt to appease wicked men. It is an attempt to give effect to an agreement that is supported by virtually all the political parties in Northern Ireland—loyalist, unionist, nationalist and republican—as well as by this Government and the Government of the Republic. The intention is to give effect to an agreement. I suggest, as I have before, that without this Bill there would be no agreement. Your Lordships have to decide whether what is at stake in Northern Ireland—the prize of peace—is so important, as I believe it is, that one has to deal with certain measures on the way, about which we all feel very uncomfortable, to say the least.
I was asked by my noble friend Lord Stoddart whether the agreement was even-handed as regards whether all those who supported it should continue supporting it. Yes, of course; we regard the agreement as a complete package. All the political parties, as well as this Government and the Government of the Republic, are bound by it. One of the reasons that the Government resisted some of the amendments suggested at earlier stages is because they would have undermined the sense of integrity of that package. If we were to change the parts of the agreement within our control, we should not have the authority to say to others that they may not change the parts of the agreement within their control. That is why we have to hold the line in the way that we have.
I wish to make three other introductory comments. First, of course, this House has debated the matter on a number of occasions; but we have also come to decisions on a number of occasions. Last Monday we came to a clear decision on a way forward, which was supported unanimously by the House. Secondly, I suggest that the effect of the amendments would be counter-productive: they would not achieve the ends wished for and argued for by the noble Lords who have tabled them. Thirdly, as I have indicated, the Secretary of State is already reviewing the cases.
§ The Earl of OnslowMy Lords, what is there to review? The facts are known. The Royal Prerogative is a weapon which can be used. Why can it not just be used? We know the facts on this issue. These guardsmen have been locked up and almost certainly should not have been. There are no more facts to know; there is nothing more to review.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, as I indicated on the previous occasion, the Secretary of State has to review several thousand pages. She has had other evidence put before her from the solicitors of the two guardsmen. We have to have a proper procedure, to which the Secretary of State is committed. She is currently following that 901 procedure. I believe that that is a proper way forward, and that is the path that the Secretary of State has indicated that she is following.
§ Baroness Park of MonmouthMy Lords, does the Minister not agree that this cuts both ways? If the Government wish to preserve the agreement, as everyone does, unusual action—which is available to the Secretary of State—should be taken by the Government. Surely it is not necessary for the Secretary of State herself to read all the thousands of pages? Does she have no staff who can make a summary? I find it extremely difficult to believe that it is not within the power of the Government, and of the Secretary of State in particular, having been offered the solution of the Royal Prerogative, to cut through the red tape and save the agreement without putting the guardsmen to the wholly improper indignity of having it suggested that they might secure their freedom through the Bill. No one wants that, not least the guardsmen themselves, I should think. The Secretary of State has powers, and those powers should be used. We should not be left to feel that we must send a signal to them and the people of Northern Ireland that we believe in good, not ill, through supporting the amendment; we should be given an opportunity to be absolutely certain that the right answer will emerge soon.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but we are dealing with the liberty of two individuals who have been convicted in a court. It is no light matter for a Government Minister to override the decision of a court. That has to be done after thought has been given to it. It is not something that can be delegated totally to officials. The Secretary of State herself, as an individual, has an awesome responsibility. This will be one exercise of that awesome responsibility. It would not be easy for me to say to her that the House says that she should delegate the work to an official; that the official should tell her what to do; and that she should then do it. The noble Baroness was not suggesting that the official would order the Secretary of State what to do. It is a serious responsibility. It is not easy for this House to suggest that the Secretary of State should abdicate that responsibility by delegating it to someone else, who would then advise her. She will receive advice, but in the end she has to make the decision. In a case such as this, given the enormous concern that has been expressed and the new evidence that came forward in the debate in this House on Monday, I do not believe that it is a task that the Secretary of State should treat lightly. I believe that she is approaching it in the serious way that this House would wish her to.
§ Viscount BrookeboroughMy Lords, the Minister suggested that the Secretary of State had certain procedures to go through and a large number of cases to deal with. He was perhaps implying that there were other cases in the pipeline. There have been procedures over the years for the early release of prisoners. We have spent the last weeks, and longer, discussing special procedures for the terrorists. A condition of this should 902 perhaps be that she should change the order in which she is looking at cases. A measure is already going through for the terrorists: when the Bill goes through, they will be able to use the procedure under it. Among all the cases that the Secretary of State is dealing with, and given the strong feeling on the matter, surely the case of the guardsmen can at least be taken immediately, as a high priority, accepting that the Secretary of State has a great many papers to look at concerning that case.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, I am not aware that the Secretary of State is currently looking at any cases other than those of Fisher and Wright. If I am wrong about that, I will let your Lordships know. My understanding is that that is the only substantial case that she is looking at. It is the procedure that she follows in regard to the case of the two guardsmen to which I referred.
§ Lord WaddingtonMy Lords—
§ Lord CarterMy Lords, we are at Third Reading. I understand that this is a very sensitive subject, but no Peer should speak more than once. Noble Lords are allowed to ask the Minister short questions for clarification when he has finished, but one should not continue with speeches at Third Reading and one should certainly not speak more than once.
§ Lord WaddingtonMy Lords, I shall not detain the Minister for more than a moment. If the Minister has no other cases on her desk at the present time, and as all the evidence in relation to this case is available, why on earth need it take four or five weeks to come to a conclusion? If the will is there, she could surely come to a conclusion tomorrow.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, I do not think that I can add to the answer that I have given. The Secretary of State has many other matters to deal with, as your Lordships will be aware. One cannot simply stop the whole peace process, the work of the new assembly and all the things with which the Secretary of State is involved because of one case, important though it is. Her responsibilities oblige her to do other things, as well. I suggest that she is moving pretty quickly. I assure the House that I shall pass on to the Secretary of State all the arguments that have been put today about the need for expedition. I shall make sure that she is aware of that very quickly following this debate.
Perhaps I may deal with the substance of the amendments. The amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, seeks to ensure that prisoners who are not members, or who have not been members, of proscribed or terrorist organisations should have their applications considered first when the commissioners begin their work under the Bill.
The question of the listing of applications was considered in your Lordships' House both in Committee and at Report. I explained the Government's view that it was important that the commissioners should themselves establish clear rules for prioritising which cases should be considered first and that they would be 903 required to make known such rules. I suggested that the commissioners would want to take account of matters such as those identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, as well as when the prisoner would be likely to be released if granted a declaration. However, at no time did any noble Lord suggest a priority rule of the kind proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit or Lord Molyneaux, before the amendments for today's debate were tabled.
Indeed, there are a number of problems and difficulties with each of the amendments that relate to the listing of cases and I shall try to explain those problems for the benefit of your Lordships' House. It is important that we consider the detailed problems. This is the Third Reading of the Bill. It is not as though we were in Committee and amendments could be withdrawn and retabled. This is the last opportunity that the House will have to deal with amendments in this way.
Amendment No. 1 ties the priority of consideration to the idea of membership of a proscribed or terrorist organisation. Noble Lords will be aware that to be a member of a proscribed organisation is a criminal offence under the Emergency Provisions Act 1996 as well as under the Acts of that name which preceded the 1996 Act. In practice, only a small number of those convicted of terrorist offences are convicted of being a member of a proscribed organisation. Very often they will be convicted of other offences. In the absence of such a conviction it would be difficult for the commissioners to find that a person was or had been a member of a proscribed organisation. To do so would be to act as though the person had been convicted of a criminal offence and to treat him less favourably as a consequence when in fact there had been no conviction. Noble Lords will understand that to discriminate in that way without proper legal foundation for the decision would probably not be upheld by the courts. In one sense that may be a technical point, but it is also a point of principle which undermines the effectiveness of the amendment in achieving what the noble Lord wants.
A further problem presents itself with regard to membership of a terrorist organisation. Again the term "terrorist organisation" is a term used in this Bill. A terrorist organisation is an organisation identified by the Secretary of State under Clause 3(8) of this Bill. Whether the Bill should be expressed in the manner in which it is currently drafted is a matter to which I shall return later.
It may be the case that all the organisations specified by the Secretary of State under the Bill as terrorist organisations are also proscribed organisations. In that case no new problem over and above that which I have already identified arises. But if that is not the case and if an organisation is specified by the Secretary of State under Clause 3(8) which is not a proscribed organisation the amendment would place a new responsibility on the commissioners. They would be required to consider whether an applicant was or had been a member of a terrorist organisation.
904 In that case the commissioners would be required to consider all the applications that they receive to decide which prisoners were members of the organisation or organisations in question and which were not. That would be an onerous undertaking and the amendment would require that it be completed before the formal consideration of any single application. Indeed, this latter fact may delay the consideration of the cases that the amendment is intended to benefit. That is why I suggest that the amendments would be counter-productive.
If that approach were taken, every case would have to be considered against that criterion before any application could be determined. Prisoners and their representatives would want to make representations and present evidence, in particular, because the finding by the commissioners would be relevant to whether a prisoner satisfied the conditions for release. It could take a considerable period of time before any decisions were made at all. Clearly, that is undesirable. It is important that the commissioners are able to get down to the work of considering cases quickly.
In addition to the problems with applying these new tests to the existing state of affairs, both this amendment and Amendment No. 2 would require that the commissioners also give consideration to the historical position of the prisoner—whether at any time in the past he had been a member or a supporter of a proscribed or terrorist organisation. That would greatly extend the investigation that the commissioners were required to engage in. Indeed, the consideration of the order in which cases are to be considered would be made in many ways a more onerous task than the consideration of cases against the statutory criteria.
The amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would require that applications from members of the Armed Forces convicted of murder committed while on duty in Northern Ireland should be considered first. Of course, it is clear which cases the noble Lord has in mind. Again, there are a series of problems with the amendment. First, in addition to applying the tests that are currently in the legislation, the commissioners would have to decide whether a prisoner was a supporter of a proscribed organisation. As with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that would add new responsibilities to the work of the commissioners.
Secondly, Amendment No. 2 would require the commissioners to decide whether a prisoner was a supporter of a terrorist organisation and to consider such cases after the consideration of applications from prisoners who are members of the Armed Forces. This test, which would be used for setting a priority order, is identical to the second condition contained on the face of the Bill. But that cannot be the case. If the commissioners considered that a prisoner was a supporter of a terrorist organisation, they should not consider the application at a later date; they should refuse the application altogether on the grounds that a condition necessary for release had failed.
That raises a further problem similar to that identified in relation to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. As the decision would be likely 905 to affect the consideration of the merits of the application and would be based on similar evidence, prisoners would have to be provided with the facility to make representations and present evidence before the decision was taken. As I explained before, if the process of setting the order in which cases were to be considered was amended in that way, setting that order would itself become a major undertaking for the commissioners.
Viscount BledisloeMy Lords, does the noble Lord not accept that all that has to happen under the amendment is that applications from members of the services are considered first? There are only two of those. Once that has been done, no further order needs to be cited. The argument in respect of Amendment No. 2 is absolutely inaccurate, though it was correct in relation to Amendment No. 1.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, I think not. But let me finish my case. It is not as simple as the noble Viscount suggests. I have talked about the need to allow prisoners to be able to make representations.
A third problem with Amendment No. 2 is that the amendment considers the priority to be given to two groups of cases—members of the Armed Forces convicted of murder committed in the course of their duties in Northern Ireland and supporters of terrorist or proscribed organisations. What the amendment does not address—to answer the noble Viscount—is the position of applicants who are not a member of either category. Are they to be considered before all other prisoners? After all other prisoners? In parallel with the consideration of soldiers and terrorists, past or present? In that respect the amendment is clearly defective. It is a recipe for confusion and uncertainty designed to weaken or damage the Bill and with it the implementation of the agreement.
These are not technical considerations. We are dealing with rights under law and rights of individuals. We are dealing with the need to have proper processes. If we cut corners, I fear that there will be endless litigation and justice will not have been achieved.
I have set out some of the practical problems behind each of the amendments relating to the listing of cases. In addition, both amendments would require that the commissioners treat prisoners who are or have been members of proscribed or terrorist organisations differently from other prisoners considered under the Bill, whether members of the Armed Forces or not. The agreement draws no distinction between prisoners on the basis of their past or present association, save if they are supporters of organisations that have not established or are not maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires in which case the commissioners may not grant them a declaration. The release arrangements are to apply to all prisoners convicted of scheduled offences and sentenced to five years or more or life imprisonment. Within that category no further distinction is made by the agreement and your Lordships' House should not add one at this time.
As I made clear, both amendments are clearly defective in detail and wrong in principle. They would bring confusion and uncertainty to the Bill. The 906 amendments, if accepted, would prevent the implementation of the Good Friday agreement and that cannot be allowed to happen.
Perhaps I may briefly refer to the third amendment mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. The noble Lord shakes his head to say that he does not want to proceed with it. However, it relates to a different issue and therefore, whatever the House were to decide on the first or second amendments, would have no bearing on the merits or demerits of the third. It would seriously go against the Good Friday agreement.
In conclusion, even if noble Lords wish to achieve what the movers of the two amendments wish to achieve, I would suggest that the amendments will not do that. The amendments are defective, they are counter-productive and they would not achieve the ends aimed for. But, in a wider sense, I would suggest—I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—that it is not right in principle to link the release of these two guardsmen with the Bill. The Secretary of State has made clear what she is doing, what she intends to do and how she intends to set about it. Attempting, as it were, to politicise the argument by linking it with the Bill is neither in the interests of the guardsmen nor is it a proper way to proceed with the Bill.
§ Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, conscious of the urgency and importance of subsequent business, and of the indication given by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that he may wish to test the opinion of the House, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert (", but no application by a prisoner who is or has been a supporter of a terrorist or proscribed organisation shall be processed before any application made by a prisoner who is a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown serving a sentence of imprisonment in respect of a conviction for murder committed in the course of his duties in Northern Ireland")
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it is within my right just to reply briefly to the noble Lord; and I shall do so if I may. I believe that the strength of a case is normally in inverse relation to the length of the speech making the case. The fact is that if the two guardsmen are released by the end of August there will be no application for the amendment. There will be no problems to it. The problem with the humble Address route is that the humble Address will land on the desk of the Secretary of State, who gave her view last October that the guardsmen had not served sufficiently long in prison. What is more, the Prime Minister said on 3rd June in the other place that the Secretary of State would start to look at the applications for release of the guardsmen that day. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, told us, she did not do so until 6th July. So we cannot accept that there is any degree of urgency in the consideration.
§ The fact is also that it is inconceivable that if the guardsmen are not released by the hand of the Secretary of State their applications under the Bill would be 907 refused. It stands out absolutely clearly that they would not be refused. Despite all the bureaucratic objections—I understand well enough what the Minister was saying—this amendment would make sure that, in the event that the Secretary of State does not release the guardsmen—for obvious reasons, the noble Lord cannot guarantee that she will—their applications would be dealt with as a priority. I cannot, I fear, withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
§ 5.2 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 156; Not-Contents, 213.
909| Division No. 2 | |
| CONTENTS | |
| Aberdare, L. | Dunleath, L. |
| Ailsa, M. | Elibank, L. |
| Aldenham, L. | Ellenborough, L. |
| Aldington, L. | Elliott of Morpeth, L. |
| Anelay of St. Johns, B. | Exmouth, V. |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Ferrers, E. |
| Attlee, E. | Fraser of Carmyllie, L. |
| Barber of Tewkesbury, L. | Freyberg, L. |
| Beaverbrook, L. | Gage, V. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Gardner of Parkes, B. |
| Beloff, L. | Geddes, L. |
| Berners, B. | Grafton, D. |
| Biddulph, L. | Grantley, L. |
| Biffen, L. | Gray of Contin, L. |
| Blake, L. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. |
| Blatch, B. [Teller.] | Harmar-Nicholls, L. |
| Bledisloe, V. | Harmsworth, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Harris of Peckham, L. |
| Braine of Wheatley, L. | Hemphill, L. |
| Brookeborough, V. | Home, E. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Inchyra, L. |
| Burnham, L. | Ironside, L. |
| Burton, L. | Jenkin of Roding, L. |
| Butterworth, L. | Jopling, L. |
| Buxton of Alsa, L. | Kelvedon, L. |
| Byford, B. | Kenyon, L. |
| Cadman, L. | Kinnoull, E. |
| Caldecote, V. | Knight of Collingtree, B. |
| Campbell of Croy, L. | Knutsford, V. |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | Lang of Monkton, L. |
| Chadlington, L. | Lauderdale, E. |
| Chesham, L. | Long, V. |
| Clark of Kempston, L. | Luke, L. |
| Coleridge, L. | McColl of Dulwich, L. |
| Cope of Berkeley, L. | Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. |
| Cork and Orrery, E. | Macleod of Borve, B. |
| Cottesloe, L. | Manton, L. |
| Courtown, E. | Mar, C. |
| Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L. | Marlesford, L. |
| Cranborne, V. | Masham of Ilton, B. |
| Cross, V. | Massereene and Ferrard, V. |
| Cumberlege, B. | Mersey, V. |
| Dacre of Glanton, L. | Middleton, L. |
| Dartmouth, E. | Miller of Hendon, B. |
| Davidson, V. | Milverton, L. |
| De L'Isle, V. | Molyneaux of Killead, L. |
| Dean of Harptree, L. | Monson, L. |
| Denbigh, E. | Mountgarret, V. |
| Dixon-Smith, L. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. |
| Donegall, M. | Moynihan, L. |
| Downshire, M. | Munster, E. |
| Dundonald, E. | Nelson, E. |
| O'Cathain, B. | Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L. |
| Onslow, E. [Teller.] | Stair, E. |
| Onslow of Woking, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Oppenheim-Barnes, B. | Stodart of Leaston, L. |
| Orr-Ewing, L. | Strafford, E. |
| Peel, E. | Strange, B. |
| Pender, L. | Strathcarron, L. |
| Peyton of Yeovil, L. | Strathclyde, L. |
| Pike, B. | Suffolk and Berkshire, E. |
| Pilkington of Oxenford, L. | Taylor of Warwick, L. |
| Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. | Tebbit, L. |
| Quinton, L. | Teviot, L. |
| Rankeillour, L. | Teynham, L. |
| Rathcavan, L. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Rawlings, B. | Thomas of Swynnerton, L. |
| Rees, L. | Tollemache, L. |
| Renton of Mount Harry, L. | Tombs, L. |
| Renwick, L. | Torphichen, L. |
| Roberts of Conwy, L. | Trefgarne, L. |
| Romney, E. | Trumpington, B. |
| Rotherwick, L. | Waddington, L. |
| Rowallan, L. | Wakeham, L. |
| Seccombe, B. | Waterford, M. |
| Selkirk of Douglas, L. | Willoughby de Broke, L. |
| Sempill, L. | Wynford, L. |
| Skelmersdale, L. | Young, B. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | |
| Addington, L. | Dormand of Easington, L. |
| Ailesbury, M. | Dubs, L. |
| Alderdice, L. | Eatwell, L. |
| Alli, L. | Ely, Bp. |
| Amos, B. | Evans of Parkside, L. |
| Ampthill, L. | Ewing of Kirkford, L. |
| Annan, L. | Ezra, L. |
| Archer of Sandwell, L. | Falconer of Thoroton, L. |
| Ashley of Stoke, L. | Falkland, V. |
| Barnett, L. | Farrington of Ribbleton, B. |
| Bath and Wells, Bp. | Gallacher, L. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Gilbert, L. |
| Berkeley, L. | Gisborough, L. |
| Blackstone, B. | Gladwin of Clee, L. |
| Blease, L. | Gladwyn, L. |
| Borrie, L. | Glenarthur, L. |
| Bridges, L. | Glentoran, L. |
| Brightman, L. | Gordon of Strathblane, L. |
| Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. | Gould of Potternewton, B. |
| Brooks of Tremorfa, L. | Graham of Edmonton, L. |
| Broughshane, L. | Grantchester, L. |
| Bruntisfield, L. | Gregson, L. |
| Burlison, L. | Grenfell, L. |
| Callaghan of Cardiff, L. | Grey, E. |
| Campbell of Alloway, L. | Habgood, L. |
| Carew, L. | Hacking, L. |
| Carlisle, E. | Halsbury, E. |
| Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | Hampton, L. |
| Carter, L. [Teller.] | Hamwee, B. |
| Castle of Blackburn, B. | Hardie, L. |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | Hardy of Wath, L. |
| Clement-Jones, L. | Harris of Greenwich, L. |
| Craig of Radley, L. | Haskel, L. |
| Currie of Marylebone, L. | Hattersley, L. |
| Davies of Coity, L. | Hayman, B. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. | Hayter, L. |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | Henderson of Brompton, L. |
| Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. | Hilton of Eggardon, B. |
| Dearing, L. | Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. |
| Denton of Wakefield, B. | Holderness, L. |
| Derwent, L. | Hollick, L. |
| Desai, L. | Hollis of Heigham, B. |
| Dholakia, L. | Hooson, L. |
| Diamond, L. | Hope of Craighead, L. |
| Dilhorne, V. | Hoyle, L. |
| Dixon, L. | Hughes, L. |
| Donoughue, L. | Hughes of Woodside, L. |
| Hunt of Kings Heath, L. | Randall of St. Budeaux, L. |
| Hylton, L. | Razzall, L. |
| Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.] | Rea, L. |
| Redesdale, L. | |
| Islwyn, L. | Rendell of Babergh, B. |
| Janner of Braunstone, L. | Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. |
| Jay of Paddington, B. | Renton, L. |
| Jenkins of Hillhead, L. | Renwick of Clifton, L. |
| Jenkins of Putney, L. | Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.] |
| Judd, L. | Ridley, V. |
| Kennedy of The Shaws, B. | Rochester, L. |
| Kennet, L. | Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. |
| Kilbracken, L. | Rogers of Riverside, L. |
| Kirkwood, L. | Russell, E. |
| Knollys, V. | Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. |
| Lester of Herne Hill, L. | Sandberg, L. |
| Lichfield, Bp. | Sandwich, E. |
| Lincoln, Bp. | Sefton of Garston, L. |
| Lockwood, B. | Serota, B. |
| Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. | Sewel, L. |
| Lovell-Davis, L. | Sharples, B. |
| Ludford, B. | Shepherd, L. |
| McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.] | Shore of Stepney, L. |
| Simon, V. | |
| Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. | Simon of Glaisdale, L. |
| Mackie of Benshie, L. | Simon of Highbury, L. |
| McNally, L. | Smith of Clifton, L. |
| Maddock, B. | Southwell, Bp. |
| Mallalieu, B. | Stallard, L. |
| Manchester, Bp. | Steel of Aikwood, L. |
| Mar and Kellie, E | Strabolgi, L. |
| Mason of Barnsley, L. | Symons of Vernham Dean, B. |
| Taverne, L. | |
| Merlyn-Rees, L. | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Meston, L. | Taylor of Gryfe, L. |
| Methuen, L. | Thomas of Macclesfield, L. |
| Milner of Leeds, L. | Thomson of Monifieth, L. |
| Minto, E. | Thurlow, L. |
| Mishcon, L. | Tomlinson, L. |
| Monkswell, L. | Tope, L. |
| Montagu of Beaulieu, L. | Tordoff, L. |
| Montague of Oxford, L. | Tugendhat, L. |
| Morris of Castle Morris, L. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Morris of Manchester, L. | Varley, L. |
| Murray of Epping Forest, L. | Vivian, L. |
| Napier and Ettrick, L. | Walker of Doncaster, L |
| Newall, L. | Wallace of Coslany, L. |
| Newton of Braintree, L. | Wallace of Saltaire, L. |
| Nicholson of Winterbourne, B. | Watson of Invergowrie, L. |
| Ogmore, L. | Waverley, V. |
| Orme, L. | Wedderburn of Charlton, L. |
| Parry, L. | Westbury, L. |
| Paul, L. | Whaddon, L. |
| Peston, L. | Whitty, L. |
| Pitkeathley, B. | Wigoder, L. |
| Plant of Highfield, L. | Williams of Crosby, B. |
| Plumb, L. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
| Puttnam, L. | Winchester, Bp. |
| Radnor, E. | Windlesham, L. |
| Ramsay of Cartvale, B. | Young of Old Scone, B. |
§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ 5.14 p.m.
§ Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 3:
§ Page 2, line 11, leave out ("terrorist") and insert ("specified").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 11. These amendments are all concerned with the same purpose. During the earlier consideration of this Bill both in your Lordships' House and in another place, 910 there was some criticism of the use of the phrase "terrorist organisations". It was suggested that the use of the formulation was confusing as there could be organisations that many would consider to be terrorist organisations that would not be identified as such under the terms of the Bill. The point was forcefully put by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken when your Lordships' House considered the Bill in Committee. Noble Lords indicated their agreement with that argument.
§ The amendments which have been tabled in my name seek to address the problem by replacing each reference to a terrorist organisation by a reference to a specified organisation. A specified organisation would then be an organisation considered by the Secretary of State to be an organisation concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, which has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. I hope noble Lords will agree to these amendments, which are designed to remove any confusion over the status of those organisations not specified by the Secretary of State under Clause 3(8). I beg to move.
§ Lord KilbrackenMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling Amendment No. 3 and in precisely the language which I suggested when I spoke off the cuff at Committee stage, and also Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 11, which are consequential. I think that they do, as he said, remove confusion, make the Bill more comprehensible; and I welcome them.
§ Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, I believe that these are wise amendments. I also welcome them and hope that they will be supported.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 4:
§ Page 2, line 14, leave out ("terrorist") and insert ("specified").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 5:
§ Page 2, line 18, at end insert ("anywhere").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may remember that at Report stage I moved an amendment to Clause 3(5), the purpose of which was to prevent the release of skilled terrorists—say, bomb-makers or snipers—whom the authorities had reason to believe were on the point of being recruited by terrorist organisations in other parts of the world such as Spain, Corsica, the Middle East or the Indian sub-continent. Despite widespread support from every quarter of the House, the Minister rejected it mainly on the grounds that the danger I highlighted was obviated by the provisions of Clause 3(6).
§ However, there are two flaws in the Government's argument. The first is that subsection (6) applies only to life prisoners. Therefore, extremely dangerous terrorists who have been awarded determinate sentences of, for example, 20 or 25 years, would not be covered by it. The second flaw is that two eminent and highly experienced legal luminaries—if I may use rather archaic language—namely, the noble Lord, 911 Lord Mishcon, from the Government Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, from the Conservative Benches, supported my lay supposition that the word "public" might cover only the United Kingdom public, thus leaving the public elsewhere in the world at risk from exported terrorism.
§ As Amendment No. 3 is a compromise amendment, there is nothing that we can do about the first flaw. The world will still be at risk from released terrorists who have been awarded determinate sentences however evil their crimes. That would appear to be an unfortunate consequence of the Good Friday agreement. But that agreement does not conflict in any way with this very modest amendment designed to overcome the second flaw, or possible flaw. By simply inserting the single and straightforward word "anywhere" for the avoidance of doubt, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—I am grateful to him for that suggestion—it will ensure that the subsection now protects the public throughout the world and not merely in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, I undertook at Report to consider further the matter focused on by this amendment. Noble Lords were concerned that should a life sentence prisoner indicate that he would intend to reside outside the United Kingdom following his release, the commissioners would not be required to consider whether he would be a risk to the public. In particular, the concern was that the "public" referred to in Clause 3(6) did not include the public resident in another country.
Perhaps I may assure the noble Lords that the provision as currently drafted does allow for consideration to be given to the safety of members of the public resident in other jurisdictions. The formulation under consideration is already present in other legislation relating to release and is interpreted in a broad way. An example of this is proceedings before the Parole Board in England and Wales. On occasions the Parole Board will consider the release of prisoners who would be liable to be deported immediately following release from prison. In considering these cases the Parole Board does take account of whether the prisoner would be a danger to the public following release even though it is not the public within the United Kingdom who would be at risk. If the prisoner is thought likely to be a danger, he may not be released.
In addition to there being a precedent for interpreting this provision in a broad way, to amend it may lead to uncertainty in other cases where a similar provision already exists. To take my previous example, if your Lordships' House were to make the amendment that has been proposed, it would be open to doubt whether the Parole Board should take account of the risk to the public outside the United Kingdom. That would clearly be unsatisfactory and is not what is required. As such, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, as some noble Lords may recall, I have supported similar amendments at earlier stages. I found the Minister's answer reassuring both in the positive sense because he said that 912 the provisions, as drafted, apply to the public anywhere, and in the negative sense that this amendment might damage other legislation. Although I think that the point behind the amendment was a good one, perhaps this amendment is not as necessary as it at first seemed.
§ Lord MonsonMy Lords, I am heartened by the Minister's assurance that despite the doubts expressed not only by myself, but also by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Campbell of Alloway, at Report, the word "public" does, indeed, embrace the public in the world at large. That is a very important point. I am glad that it has been made clear and that we can rely on it in the future because this debate will appear in print. With that assurance, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 6:
§ Page 2, line 27, leave out ("terrorist") and insert ("specified").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 7:
§ Page 2, line 28, leave out ("may specify only organisations") and insert ("shall specify any organisation").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is similar to an amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, during the previous consideration of this Bill. Although it is the Government's view that the amendment makes little difference to the way in which the Bill will operate, the Government are happy to give the further reassurance that is offered by the amendment. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are consequential on Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
§ Lord GlentoranMy Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can explain something to me. Although I agree that the words "may specify" should be changed to "shall specify", I do not quite understand why it follows that the word "organisations" should become single; hence the need for Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. I should prefer the ultimate amendment to be, "shall specify any organisations".
§ Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, as the Minister said, he resisted amendments to this effect at earlier stages. In view of the high turnout on the Bench of Bishops this afternoon, it seems that repentance is to be valued. At an earlier stage, the Minister said that such an amendment was neither necessary nor appropriate and that nothing would be gained by making such an amendment. I am glad that the noble Lord has changed his mind. I welcome his amendments.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Lord Dubs moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
§ Page 2, line 30, leave out ("are") and insert ("is").
§ Page 2, line 32, leave out ("have not established or are") and insert ("has not established or is").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
913§ Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 10:
§ Page 2, line 35, after ("account") insert ("all of the following conditions, namely").
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be brief in moving this amendment because noble Lords who have followed debates on this Bill will know that I have repeatedly tried to convince the Government of the necessity to see the agreement as a whole and not to look solely at page 25 which deals with the issue of prisoners. We have frequently been told by the Prime Minister and others that the agreement should be seen as a whole. We know that nobody likes all of the agreement. The different parties, including ourselves, dislike different parts of it. That is why the agreement has to be taken as a whole. This is my last attempt to get the Minister to acknowledge that in this specific way in the Bill.
§ I have steadily modified my proposals on how that should be done in the direction that the Minister wished. This amendment is weaker than any of my previous amendments on this matter. It seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State takes account specifically of decommissioning—not as one of a number of factors, but as a specific factor. It is not a pre-condition. I am leaving in the words "take into account" which, at an earlier stage, I tried to stiffen up. The amendment does not establish a new linkage, but every part of the agreement is linked. That is what we mean when we say, "the whole agreement".
§ The two matters of the prisoners and decommissioning are additionally linked by the fact that they are the two matters which most concern the terrorist organisations. If those organisations become ex-terrorist organisations, they will get their prisoners out; but if they are ex-terrorists, they will not need their arms and should give them up.
§ I am not suggesting that arms should be given up by saying, "So many prisoners released for so many guns given up". I am suggesting that the two processes should flow in parallel during the two years which both are set to run. As I have pointed out previously, the process of decommissioning is due to be completed in May 2000—two years after the referendum. The process of releasing the prisoners comes to its height in July 2000, depending on when the Bill receives Royal Assent and comes into effect—at any rate, a couple of months after decommissioning is supposed to be completed. It will then be clear whether or not the two processes have moved in parallel; as they should. Nobody—neither the terrorist organisations nor ourselves—should be able to pick out those parts of the process which they may like or dislike. All parts of the agreement should move forward together. I beg to move.
§ Lord Molyneaux of KilleadMy Lords, I shall be brief because the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has amply explained the attitude that he and I have taken throughout our debates on this Bill. As it is presently drafted, we get the impression—the general public would get this impression if they took the trouble to read the Bill—that a sort of selection box is being offered. However, we need something more specific. We need a degree of linkage and unification between the various 914 conditions. Most of all, at this late stage in the passage of the Bill, it would be helpful to have from the Minister a clearly defined explanation of the Government's attitude to the decommissioning of command-and-control structures, and not so much of the actual armaments.
§ Lord MonsonMy Lords, I, too, am happy to support this amendment which, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, explained is a heavily watered-down compromise. It would ensure that although there would be no obligation to give equal weight to each of the four conditions, all four conditions would nevertheless have to be taken into account and there would be no question of any one of them being disregarded altogether.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Lord HyltonMy Lords, I respectfully suggest that this amendment goes too far, is too strong and ties the hands of the Secretary of State too tightly. As I understand it, the original linkage was between the release of prisoners and the maintenance of the ceasefires, not between the release of prisoners and decommissioning.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, I support this amendment. I believe that it is a great pity and a lost opportunity that there is no linkage between the release of prisoners and the surrender of arms other than the Good Friday agreement itself. It seems pretty clear that that may not necessarily be fully observed by all the parties. I believe that this is a missed opportunity.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, in discussing the previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested that I had repented, the implication being that I had sinned during Committee and Report stages. I hotly deny that. If on occasions the Government, having listened, feel able to change their mind that is not a reason for accusing them of sinning; rather, the weight of the arguments has had some effect.
§ Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, I accept the rebuke of the Minister. I certainly do not suggest that he has sinned. The Government's change of mind on this occasion, and I hope in relation to the amendment to which the Minister is about to speak, is extremely wise and much appreciated.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, while I am grateful for the noble Lord's comment he may presume too much as regards this particular amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has spoken eloquently to this amendment, just as he spoke to similar amendments at Committee and Report stages. The noble Lord will be aware that I understand the sentiment but I cannot support the amendment, which would depart from the terms of the Good Friday agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said a moment ago.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear during consideration of this Bill in another place that all elements of the Good Friday agreement must be implemented by all parties in good faith. There 915 can be no picking and choosing. If the whole agreement is not implemented then it will simply not work. At Second Reading in your Lordships' House I described the agreement as a package which contained a number of different elements, but which was a package nevertheless. The Government will implement those parts of the agreement that fall to it to implement and will hold the other parties to their commitments. All parts of the agreement must be taken forward together or the whole enterprise will fail and that cannot be allowed to happen. I have set out the Government's commitment to the terms of the agreement, which is shared by many on both sides of your Lordships' House.
I turn to the specific terms of the amendment. Subsections (8) and (9) of Clause 3 are drafted to remain faithful to the Good Friday agreement while setting out clearly how the Secretary of State will identify which organisations have not established or are not maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires. The four factors in subsection (9) are those identified by the Prime Minister in his speech at Balmoral on 14th May. But they are four factors, not four conditions as the amendment would have it. The Prime Minister was clear that the intention was to explain what was meant by a complete and unequivocal ceasefire that was not a sham or a tactical ceasefire and that he was not establishing new conditions to be satisfied. He was not re-writing the agreement and, with respect to noble Lords, nor should we.
At the same time, the Prime Minister was clear that these factors would be applied more rigorously over time, and that remains the intention. This reflects the fact that there are things that can only happen over a period of time such as the dismantling of terrorist organisations. That was a factor referred to by the Prime Minister which is subsumed within the requirements that organisations should be committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means and that they have ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or preparation for violence. Action such as this should happen in parallel with the release of prisoners as part of the parallel implementation of all parts of the agreement. As I have explained, this amendment would fundamentally change the nature of the test to be applied and would depart from the terms of the Good Friday agreement. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
§ Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, as I expected I have not succeeded in persuading the noble Lord. We have already argued about the precise wording of the Balmoral speech and the use of the word "and" which does not appear in the Bill as drafted and would be replaced by this amendment. We have to rely on the Minister's repeated statement this afternoon that there can be no picking and choosing, that the Government will hold the other parties to their commitments, including by inference the commitment to decommission, and that they expect the different processes including decommissioning to proceed in parallel. We shall hold the Government to that pledge and look forward to seeing decommissioning as well as 916 the release of prisoners take place as outlined in the Bill. In view of the response of the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 9 [Licences: Conditions]:
§ Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 11:
§ Page 5, line 11, leave out ("terrorist") and insert ("specified").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 15 [Information for victims]:
§ Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 12:
§ Page 8, line 25, after ("it") insert ("was inaccurate or").
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move on to Clause 15 which deals with the provision of information to victims. There is a drafting point here that I think ought to be remedied. In Clause 15(4) we read:
If the Secretary of State has issued a statement under this section and becomes aware that any of the information in it has ceased to be accurate, he shall",
take certain action. But if the information has ceased to be accurate it must mean that it was accurate in the past and has since ceased to be accurate. I therefore propose that it should read:
any of the information in it was inaccurate or has ceased to be accurate".
That is the sum total of my proposal. I beg to move.
§ Lord MonsonMy Lords, as someone who at an earlier stage spoke up for the interests of victims I am very happy to support this reasonable and modest amendment, which I am sure will improve the Bill.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving this amendment and indicating to me that he intended to do so. I am afraid that I shall disappoint him. I do not believe that this amendment is required, for the reason that I shall set out. Under Clause 15 the Secretary of State is placed under a duty to provide information to victims in clearly specified circumstances. Subsection (4) of this clause is intended to address circumstances in which the Secretary of State has previously discharged her duty by providing information which was accurate when it was provided, but which because of a change of circumstances has now become inaccurate. If the Secretary of State fails to provide accurate information the duty imposed by Clause 15 has not been discharged. Should the Secretary of State become aware that inaccurate information has been provided she remains under a duty to provide accurate information in conformity with the clause.
The amendment is not required as the duty to provide accurate information already exists. As with a previous amendment we have considered today, to write in the specific amendment proposed by the noble Lord would lead to uncertainty in other legislation where similar duties are provided for. I understand the motives of my noble friend but in the circumstances I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
§ Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, had done the House another service by spotting this apparent inaccuracy in 917 the Bill. However, in view of the comments of the Minister perhaps the lawyers have another way round the same point. Perhaps the amendment is not as good as I had first thought.
§ Lord KilbrackenMy Lords, I am grateful for the support that I have received from noble Lords who have spoken. Ministers have an extraordinary knack of finding reasons for resisting amendments. They defend their parliamentary draftsmen to the last ditch. I have nothing against parliamentary draftsmen—my father was a parliamentary draftsman—but sometimes I feel that they do not quite deserve the favourable treatment that they receive. However, I must accept the veracity of what my noble friend has said. I certainly do not intend to press this not very important matter to a Division.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
§ 5.40 p.m.
§ Lord DubsMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Your Lordships' House has given detailed consideration to the Bill at every stage. Amendments have been put down and considered. The Government have accepted the merits of a number of amendments and believe that the Bill has been improved as a consequence. Other amendments, which are not compatible with the agreement or which would not have improved the terms of the Bill, have been rejected.
This is a complex Bill which deals with a difficult subject—the early release of prisoners. We have all found it difficult to come to grips with the issues in the Bill. The context of the Bill is more remarkable. All of the prisoners who may be released under its terms could foresee that there could come a time when they would be released from prison anyway. There are few who even a year ago would have believed that the parties in Northern Ireland, together with the two governments, could reach an agreement regarding the future of Northern Ireland. The conclusion of the Good Friday agreement was a remarkable event. I was privileged to be in Northern Ireland at the time of the negotiations and to be present during those long final hours.
In the days and weeks after the conclusion of the agreement there has been a new optimism in Northern Ireland. At times that optimism has been dented by events, such as the disturbances surrounding Drumcree and, very tragically, the murder of the three Quinn children at Ballymoney and, more recently, the murder of Mr. Kearney in Belfast. There is uncertainty as to what will happen in the future but the agreement, which was endorsed by more than 72 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland, offers a way forward and an opportunity to make such barbaric events a thing of the past; to build a future free from terrorism in which all may participate on equal terms. Tonight I invite your Lordships to play your part in making that future a reality by endorsing the Bill. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Dubs.)
§ Lord Cope of BerkeleyMy Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has been unfailingly courteous in listening to our arguments. He has not always agreed with them but he has always been most courteous. I am grateful to him and to his officials for that and for the way in which they have conducted the Bill.
We all in one sense hate the idea of the Bill but, in another sense, we support the agreement. It has changed the outlook in Northern Ireland. I remain a supporter of the agreement and hope that it will be successful, even if one dislikes some parts of it.
§ On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.