Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill

House of Commons, 17 June 1998.

APPLICATIONS TO REVOKE DECLARATION

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 4, line 27, at end add `and the Secretary of State shall make such an application if the condition in section 3(8)(b) is not satisfied.'.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 23, in page 4, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert— '(2) The Commissioners shall revoke the declaration if any of the applicable conditions in section 3 are no longer met.'. Clause stand part. Government new clause 4—Revocation of declaration.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I am somewhat surprised by the absence of the two hon. Members whose names appear above mine in support of the amendment. The only point I need make in moving these self-explanatory amendments is that—as I understand the situation—they are substantially reflected in new clause 4, tabled by the Government, and therefore the amendments cease to be relevant to our deliberations. Effectively, the amendments have been taken on board by the Government and have been overtaken by events.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) pointed out that new clause 4 replaces the import of amendments Nos. 22 and 23, and I shall give some background to this important area. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) drew attention to a problem with the Bill as it is drafted. He said: clause 8 needs to be strengthened. In particular, an obligation should be imposed to seek revocation if the conditions in clause 3(8) have not been satisfied. Moreover, the commissioners should have a duty to revoke declarations if the conditions in clause 3 are no longer met."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1100.] The Government have taken note of those points—which were well made—and considered them. Clause 8 is intended to ensure that a prisoner who receives a declaration from the commissioners under clause 3 but who is not granted immediate release should still meet the criteria set out in clause 3 at the time when he comes to be released. The Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State a power to refer a case back to the commissioners if she considers that the prisoner no longer meets the criteria. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann identified that it is not clear whether the commissioners are under a duty to reconsider the case against the criteria. Helpfully, he also drew attention to the need to take account of changes of individual circumstances of the prisoner and of the consequences of an organisation that was previously not specified by the Secretary of State being specified. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) tabled amendments Nos. 22 and 23 to try to deal with that problem.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I take it that that refers only to prisoners before they are released.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps if he contributes to the debate he will be able to help me. We considered the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to be insufficient, and we tabled new clause 4. The effect of the new clause is to place the Secretary of State under a duty to refer the case of a prisoner back to the commissioners if she considers that, either as a consequence of an order made under clause 3(8) or because of a change of circumstances, the prisoner no longer satisfies the conditions set out in clause 3. That means that, if an organisation returned to violence, any prisoners who supported the organisation and who remained in custody would be referred back to the commissioners, who would consider whether they continued to meet the criteria for release. The Secretary of State may also refer the case back if she becomes aware of evidence or information which was not available to the commissioners when they granted the declaration. In either case, the commissioners are under a duty to revoke their declaration if the conditions in clause 3 are not satisfied. The Government consider that new clause 4 meets the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and we ask the House to accept that the existing clause 8 should be replaced with new clause 4. It is worth while paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has dealt carefully and responsibly with a specific weakness in the Bill. In light of our other debates on the Bill, that seems to be the way in which we can make progress in amending and improving the Bill. We have had some grandstanding over the past couple of days in The Daily Telegraph and The Times, but that does not help us to deal with a complex Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that, by careful analysis and consideration, we can take the issue forward.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

Can I have some clarification from the Minister? He may be aware that the Irish News reported at the weekend that attacks were carried out in the Markets area of my constituency by the official IRA. He may be aware also that Mr. Turley, a constituent of mine, was murdered at the weekend. At a time when the House is against judicial sentencing for capital offences, he was murdered without any trial. He may have been a drug runner, but that does not justify what happened. It has been put to me that the body which did that can be described as the SAS of Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein. Would that type of thing be considered in the light of new clause 4?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

First, I will not speculate on matters raised in the press. However, from the way in which the hon. Gentleman has described the issue, it does not seem to be a description of events which would be reported to me. As he knows, we never discuss information which may be in the hands of the Secretary of State or myself and which has been passed to us by the security forces. We must consider the details. Clearly, our sympathy would go the family of anyone murdered, because they are still victims—irrespective of what they may have been involved in.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Is there a loophole in the Bill? The Secretary of State can apply to the commissioners before the prisoner's release, but the commissioners can grant an application if a prisoner has not been released. Does that mean that if the determination date came up after an application by the Secretary of State, the prisoner could be released and out before the commissioners re-heard the case? Would it not be wiser and more prudent that, once the Secretary of State had made a declaration, a prisoner should not be released until the commissioners had again heard the case?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

That was a rather convoluted explanation of a set of circumstances—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what we want to achieve in new clause 4. I do not want to go through the whole import of the new clause again, except to say that it was designed to ensure that the belt-and-braces approach could be properly exercised. Clause 8 contained a weakness, which the new clause has resolved. Having explained the purpose of the new clause, I commend it to the Committee.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister invited me to return to the issue, so I ask him whether he can confirm that the new clause deals only with prisoners before they are released, and that it will not affect people who have been released but who are in such circumstances as are envisaged in the new clause. The new clause seems to have effect any time before the prisoner is released". It seems to deal only with prisoners who are in custody; it does not cover a prisoner who has been released but who still has the same relationship to the organisation of which he was a member. The Minister congratulates the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on being diligent in his business, but has not the Minister weakened in carrying out his business? Should not the new clause cover both parts of the equation—the prisoner who has not been released and the prisoner who has been released?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Gentleman is now trying to amend the new clause, but he had the opportunity to try to ensure that any weakness he saw in clause 8 was dealt with. If he had had a major concern, it would have been helpful if it had been expressed in the form of an amendment, although I can tell him that, of course, the licence covers those who are released. On the specific points raised by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), the matter must, in the circumstances that he described, rest with the commissioners.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister is wrong to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) missed the opportunity to table an amendment that would cover the issue, as that issue is also dealt with by clause 9. Moreover, amendment No. 44, which we tabled, would ensure that the period after a prisoner was released is covered. On new clause 4, we are talking about a narrow, even trivial, issue, in that we are concerned only about the band of time after the commission has reached a conclusion but before a prisoner is released—something could happen in the few hours or days between those two events.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

LICENCES: CONDITIONS

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 37, after 'Ireland', insert— '( )that he is not involved in directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people,'.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Amendment No. 12 covers a simple, but important, point. There is a genuine fear, which I hope that the Minister shares, that a terrorist organisation that has renounced violence and is observing a ceasefire could subcontract its work to another organisation. If the Secretary of State found that that was happening, it would be important that she had powers under clause 9 to cover people in such organisations—otherwise, a coach and horses would be driven through the Bill in a way that I know that the Minister would not want. We believe that amendment No. 12 would add weight to the Bill. Amendment No. 13 is similar to an amendment that we tabled earlier this week—we do not see why the measures should apply only to life prisoners. We did not press the amendment on Monday and we shall not necessarily press this amendment, but perhaps the Minister has now had time to reflect on the matter. I do not want to fall out with him over this, but we believe that the amendment would strengthen the Bill. I do not believe that ordinary, reasonable people will understand why only life prisoners, and not others, represent a threat to society. The Committee will be aware that almost all terrorist prisoners represent a danger and that life prisoners are not necessarily always the most dangerous. We are revisiting old ground—I make no apology for that—and I simply ask the Minister to reflect further on the matter. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

As was said on Second Reading and earlier in Committee, the licence conditions under the Bill are extremely demanding. The Secretary of State may recall a prisoner if she believes that he has broken, or is likely to break, a condition of his licence. For the record, it is worth spelling out those conditions again. First, the prisoner must not support, or be likely to support, an organisation identified as a terrorist organisation under clause 3(8). Secondly, the prisoner must not be, or be likely to become, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Thirdly, in the case of a life sentence prisoner, the prisoner must not be, or become likely to be, a danger to the public. Those are three exacting licence conditions, which go well beyond any that are currently applied in Northern Ireland. They are designed specifically to apply to prisoners who have been involved in acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. If life sentence prisoners were to be involved in such offences as are suggested in the amendment, it would be open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider that they were a danger to the public and to suspend the licence accordingly. The ordinary criminal law is entirely adequate to deal with prisoners serving fixed-term sentences who have committed ordinary criminal offences that are not related to terrorism. With the exception of some sex offenders, prisoners serving fixed-term sentences in Northern Ireland for non-terrorist offences who are released are not subject to any licence conditions. If they commit further offences, they are dealt with in the usual way and sentenced for those further offences. In some cases, prisoners who commit a further offence after being released from prison may be subject to a further penalty in respect of that part of the sentence that was remitted. Under the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a court has a discretion to make an order requiring a prisoner to serve the remaining part of a previous sentence before beginning a new sentence. That provision will apply also to prisoners released under this legislation. The involvement of terrorist organisations in organised crime is worthy of further consideration. We are dealing with different issues and that matter was raised on Second Reading. I want to consider whether the licence conditions should be extended to include such activity when a terrorist organisation moves across into ordinary organised crime as set out in preceding debates. We may well have to consider that matter. Amendment No. 13 would extend a third licence condition—that a prisoner should not become a danger to the public— to fixed-term prisoners. During the debate on clause 3, when we considered amendments Nos. 7, 55, 33, 35, 53 and 10, I set out the arguments against making risk one of the criteria that the commissioners should be required to consider when deciding whether a fixed-term prisoner should be released. That debate and argument are set out in column 42 of the Official Report on Monday 15 June. At that time, I explained that a life sentence was intended to mark the particular nature of murder and that it could also be imposed for other serious crimes if risk were a concern. I remind the Committee that, under normal law, prisoners serving fixed-term sentences are not subject to a risk assessment before being released. As risk is not a condition that fixed-term prisoners must satisfy to be released unless the risk is that the prisoner will engage in terrorist activity, it is therefore not appropriate for such a test to be imposed as a licence condition. If it were imposed, it could cause the following problem. A prisoner could have his licence suspended by the Secretary of State and revoked by the commissioners on the ground that he was, or was likely to become, a danger to the public. The prisoner could then apply to the commissioners for a declaration under clause 3. They would have to consider the prisoner for release against the conditions set out in clause 3 and, if those were met, make a further declaration in his favour. Clearly, a state of affairs in which a prisoner could be recalled to prison for breaching his licence conditions but released again because he met the criteria in clause 3 would be unsatisfactory, in particular as the prisoner in question would not have committed a further criminal offence. It would have a yo-yo effect, which would clearly be undesirable. Of course, in an earlier debate we dealt with that matter and with the reasons why we did not feel that the provision should apply. Logically, those should similarly apply to the licence conditions. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to withdraw the amendment. There is a clear relationship between the release and licence conditions. We could not allow the sort of back-and-forwards process that would result if the amendments were agreed to.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

The Minister's comments did not embrace amendment No. 44. The argument for that amendment, to which I have added my name, is so explicitly self-explanatory because of its wording that I do not need to elaborate on it in detail. The basic argument is: what would happen if a prisoner had cleared obstacle 3(8) and the organisation of which he is a member or is deemed to support had been specified not to be a terrorist organisation but, while he is on release on licence, it is then deemed to have become a terrorist organisation by the Secretary of State? The amendment, which I support, would mean that it would be a case of, "Tough luck, you're back inside." Does the Minister agree that the amendment has some valid points?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I, too, will speak to amendment No. 44. To some extent, the Minister seemed to support the argument behind it by saying that he would table a new clause later. The Minister recognises that whether a prisoner should be released is based on certain factors—if he supports a terrorist organisation, that would show that he should not be released. Under clause 3, which we have already debated, if the commissioners decided to release a prisoner but the organisation he supported was subsequently specified as a terrorist organisation, he would not be released. What could be the difference save that the prisoner is out of gaol? The prisoner is released from gaol not because of anything that he or she might have done but because of the status of his or her organisation. Surely, the status of the organisation must then determine whether the prisoner should remain out of gaol. If the prisoner is to remain in gaol if the organisation is deemed to be a terrorist organisation, it must also be right that he should return to gaol if it is subsequently listed by the Secretary of State as such.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I wish to support amendments Nos. 12 and 44, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) hit the nail on the head about the latter. Prisoners will be released not because of any great change of heart on their behalf or any particular merits that they have, but because the organisation to which they belong is perceived by the Secretary of State to have satisfied certain criteria and can therefore be listed as not participating in terrorism. Having been released through no merit on his part but purely because of his status as a member of an organisation that has temporarily, or for a ploy, renounced violence, it would be extraordinary if the prisoner did not then go back to gaol because of his status when that organisation undertook violence again or went back to terrorism so that the Secretary of State had once again to proscribe it. To me, that is self-evident and I think it would be obvious to every ordinary and reasonable person. I hope that the Minister will not say that the amendment is rewriting the Belfast agreement. Clearly, it is not rewriting anything at all. Surely it is a common-sense approach. Those prisoners released under the Bill purely because their host organisation has given up violence and satisfied the criteria must be returned to gaol when their host organisation once again takes up violence or, to be more precise, terrorism. On amendment No. 12, does the definition in the Bill that the prisoner does not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland embrace those other acts of violence that terrorists carry out in the pursuit of terrorism? I am suggesting not the scenario that the Minister described of a terrorist organisation moving into organised crime, drugs or other rackets, but the present situation in Northern Ireland, in which organisations may not be setting off major bombs that attract the media's attention, but people are being beaten up and kneecapped, pickaxes are being taken to their legs on a daily basis, and they are subject to violence in the course of terrorist intimidation. That intimidation does not necessarily raise money for organised crime, but may impose a terrorist will on the community. Many acts of violence seem not to be caught by the definition of terrorism that involves being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". I am happy to be corrected, and I admit that my recollection of which offences are classed as terrorism is a bit hazy, but would some acts of violence, such as kneecapping, that are being committed by terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland against other citizens in Northern Ireland be classified as terrorism? I support the amendment because it seems that those who are not directly involved in terrorism but who are directing, assisting in or instigating acts of violence are furthering the aims of terrorism and should, therefore, be caught by the Bill. I am worried that the clause 9 definition of terrorism is too narrow. It may restrict us to those involved in planting bombs or shooting members of the security forces, and it may not cover the all-too-regular occurrences of other acts of violence perpetrated for the furtherance of terrorism against the citizens of Northern Ireland, but not prosecuted as terrorist offences.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister chided me for not raising this matter before, but it should be raised under clause 9. This point is to do not with a prisoner who is still in custody but with those who are out of custody when the organisation to which they belong has been found to be engaged in violence. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has illustrated the point by mentioning the declaration that the old IRA has recommenced its fight. That organisation is not proscribed, although the proscription "Irish Republican Army" is broad. For years, the old IRA has claimed that it was no longer involved, and that that term covered the Provisional IRA. However, the purpose of the amendments is simply to ensure that the long arm of the law will be able to reach out to bring back to custody members of organisations that have recommenced their violence. That is important, and should be dealt with.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I am grateful to the Minister for his replies. I shall be happy not to press amendment No. 13 on the basis of his assurances. However, I want to press a little further on amendment No. 12 although the Minister need not be concerned that I intend to press it to a vote as I shall withdraw it in due course if he agrees to consider it further on Report or to have it considered in the House of Lords. The amendment is straightforward and non-controversial. If the Minister flicks back a little through the Bill, he will find in clause 3(9) that In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation… (c) is directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations". We have deliberately used the same phraseology in amendment No. 12, because it covers the point well. I cannot for the life of me see why it cannot also apply to licensed prisoners. Perhaps the Minister will wish to reflect on the point rather than giving a definite answer now, and I should be happy for him to return on Report or to have the point raised in the House of Lords. I shall withdraw the amendment, but would be interested in any observation from the Minister. I reserve the right to have the amendment reintroduced in the House of Lords if there is no satisfactory response.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

A couple of interesting points have arisen. The list of proscribed organisations mentions simply the IRA, but the organisation that has been responsible for most of the violence for many years is the Provisional IRA. Exactly what is the legal position? Does "IRA" cover both, and if so, what about the original IRA, now known as the official IRA, which, according to some newspapers, has come back to life?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

And the Continuity IRA.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

There is the Continuity IRA, too. If we do not have the correct set of letters, might there be a defence in law? It might never have been used, but there is a possibility of it. Amendment No. 12 raises the question of the subcontractors for the Provisional IRA and its fellow travellers. I think that the amendment is sensible, and I hope that the Minister will take on board what the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has said. He will recall that I tabled an earlier amendment to cover anyone involved in a criminal act, which I thought sufficiently wide to cover not only acts clearly concerned with terrorism, but lesser crimes such as punishment shootings, intimidation and violence. In any other part of the United Kingdom, those would be considered major crimes, and the fact that they can be described in Northern Ireland as minor crimes shows the background against which the debate is taking place. The Minister should reconsider. Not only are there subcontractors, but some crimes that are not listed should be associated with the greater crimes of the terrorist organisations. Amendment No. 44 relates to the further problem of a possible change of name for terrorist organisations, by which they might manage to escape for long enough to get beyond the law by skipping across the border. As we know from bitter experience, there is not a snowball's chance of getting them back. I hope that the Minister will keep those points in mind.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Let me deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) by returning to our discussion on release conditions for determinate sentence prisoners. The way in which that was defined still stands. To introduce a new criterion would make a difference to what currently applies. We judged that that was not appropriate. By reading that across to the licence conditions, I tried to explain that to have a different type of definition would mean that those who were going back and forward under a breach of licence as a determinate sentence prisoner would come back under release conditions, and then get out again. A fine judgment was needed on this point, and we tried to ensure that the current law on determinate sentence prisoners remained in place as far as the risk element was concerned. That is why the read-across applied between release conditions and licence conditions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always prepared to consider matters, but the case must be better made. I do not criticise him; he argued his case well, but there would need to be more substance to it. We would not enhance the law of Northern Ireland by doing what he has suggested. That said, I am prepared to consider the matter because we must, in introducing any Bill, consider logicalities and illogicalities, and try to resolve them. We have judged that the way in which the Bill has been drafted is sufficient to deal with the circumstances for the release of determinate prisoners, but I am always prepared to consider further. The matter can always be examined further in another place. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) upbraided me for not alluding to amendment No. 44. That was because the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) had not yet spoken in favour of that amendment, so there was no point in debating it. Amendment No. 44 would enable prisoners who supported at the time of their release an organisation that was later specified as a terrorist organisation to be recalled automatically. I understand the reasoning behind that, but the amendment goes beyond what is required. 8.30 pm Under the Bill as it stands, if a prisoner who is released on licence becomes a supporter of a terrorist organisation—an organisation specified by the Secretary of State under clause 3(8)—he is in breach of his licence and can be recalled. That would include circumstances in which an organisation that a prisoner supports was identified after he had been released as a terrorist organisation under clause 3(8); but for a prisoner to be recalled he must be, or be likely to become, a supporter of a terrorist organisation at the time of recall. The fact that a prisoner supported such an organisation in the past is not a ground to recall him as that would be contrary to human rights law for the simple reason that a case has to be proven. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, East tries to advance his argument by shouting. He has an opportunity to debate the issue and I am trying to explain the background to the Bill and my understanding of the weaknesses of amendment No. 44. However, I understand the concept that he is trying to advance. If a prisoner is released, and the organisation to which he belongs subsequently resumes its proscribed activities, why should there be an automatic assumption that the individual involved has not changed his ways? The hon. Member for Belfast, East probably thinks that no one can change their ways because he has never changed his thinking in all the time that he has been arguing his case in Northern Ireland; but people do change.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

indicated dissent.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The right hon. Gentleman told us the other night that he was an eminent and highly competent Home Office Minister, and if he does not understand that those who are allowed out on licence may themselves have changed and should not be subject to recall because of the activities of an organisation to which they once belonged, I should like to hear his interpretation of what would be right.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

The Minister is unnecessarily churlish. I never made the claims that he so arrogantly ascribes to me. I merely cited some of the unfortunate experiences that I have had. If the prisoner is released on licence, not because of any change in his behaviour but because of a change in the organisation to which he belongs, I do not see how it would be contrary to human rights laws for him to be recalled because of another change in that organisation's behaviour.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not want to get into a load of hypothetical issues, but what happens if that prisoner, who once supported that organisation, starts arguing against it when he is released on licence and helps us to understand its activities and even to bring other people to justice? If that organisation is then deemed to fall outwith the ambit of the Secretary of State's judgment on whether the prisoner should have been released in the first place, why should that prisoner be recalled, when he is now a good citizen? I do not understand the logic of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. Judgments on release will be made on a case-by-case basis even though an organisation may be deemed to satisfy other aspects of the legislation so that those who are associated with it can, in general, be released. If an individual prisoner does not satisfy the conditions, he will not be released even though the organisation to which he belongs is judged to have changed sufficiently to warrant the release of other prisoners.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

Let us be clear. We are talking not about good citizens but about terrorists who have been sentenced fairly in a United Kingdom court to a term of imprisonment—perhaps five, 10 or 15 years, or life—for murder or terrorism. Those people are to be granted release because of a political settlement, and that release depends not on their behaviour, on their renouncing violence and becoming good citizens, but on the organisation to which they belong renouncing terrorism. Surely the Minister realises that, if that organisation goes back to terrorism, the prisoner has no merit in demanding that he remain at large.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not want to be churlish again, but the right hon. Gentleman did indeed tell us about his experience as a Home Office Minister and how he was twice as good as a psychiatrist when it came to judging individual cases. Let me take him through the idiot's guide, because he has obviously forgotten everything that he should have learnt when he was a Minister about the rights of prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman asks why a prisoner cannot be recalled if the organisation is specified after his release. The answer is simple: people can be recalled as a result only of their own behaviour and not of the behaviour of an organisation to which they once belonged. I cannot make it any clearer than that. Is he really telling the Committee that people who were once terrorists must remain terrorists for ever and can never renounce violence or say that they are sorry, or even help the security forces to bring others to justice? If that is his argument, I want him to defend it, but if he accepts my argument, he should remain seated.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I do not entirely accept the argument that the Minister is producing; those prisoners will be released early, but they will be released early because of a political settlement, in the normal run of events and irrespective of the Bill. In furtherance of a political settlement, the Bill will allow accelerated release, but that accelerated release will be based not on the good behaviour of prisoners but on the behaviour of the organisations to which they belong. Accelerated release on licence purely because of their organisations' behaviour could be rescinded because of their organisations' behaviour. That issue is separate from the normal release of prisoners after their sentences have expired.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I used the phrase "the yo-yo effect" in terms of amendments Nos. 12 and 13, and there is a yo-yo effect between myself and the right hon. Gentleman. I made a comment about the European convention on human rights and the breach that would apply. To try to understand the argument, he should read article 5(4), which deals specifically with the rights of an individual in respect of events outwith his control. Such an individual may have been a supporter of an organisation, or have been the most senior person in it, and he may be subject to accelerated release, but once he is out, he has to be judged on whether he continues to support that organisation. When we are trying to reintegrate people into a normal and peaceful society, why should such a person be taken back into prison if events take place that are outwith his control and that he does not support, and how would that help what we are seeking in terms of the agreement for which the people of Northern Ireland voted so overwhelmingly?

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Does not the point being made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) fall on the ground that an individual who renewed his support for such a terrorist organisation after his release would be guilty of an offence under existing legislation? He could be charged and prosecuted, so the law adequately covers the scenario suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is wasting a lot of the Committee's time.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I hope that my hon. Friend is not saying that I am wasting a lot of the Committee's time. I am genuinely trying to ensure that there is clear understanding of what is entailed, so that there is no misrepresentation outside the House and no attempt to say that the Government are doing something that is against the best interests not only of those who may be released, but of people in the wider community, of whose best interests we must always take full consideration. My hon. Friend makes the point well. A person may be released because he is a member of an organisation that satisfies the criteria in the Bill, but if it no longer satisfies the criteria and he is found to be supporting it, he will go back inside—he will be recalled. The protection is clearly present.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister said that, while he understood the general principle that I was discussing, the thrust of his opposition was that an individual who had been released may no longer be associated with an organisation; indeed, he may be publicly opposing it. Surely it would be simple, under the clause, for the case to be heard by the commissioners. At least at that point, the police would not have to prove a case against that individual to get him back into gaol. It would be for the commissioners to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to disconnect an individual who had been convicted in respect of terrorist crimes from the organisation of which he had been a part.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I do not want a dialogue to develop between myself and the hon. Gentleman—I have explained the situation. I can understand why people say, "Once a member, always a member. If the organisation breaches the terms of the legislation, everyone should be back inside." I have tried to explain, however, why that is wrong in detail and wrong in terms of the ECHR. There is not much more to be gained from further debate on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. I shall not ask hon. Members to support it. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) again referred to press speculation. We do not respond to press speculation. Any judgments in relation to security issues are based on the best advice received—not on advice from anonymous sources who may or may not be privy to information, and who have spoken to the press and put their own spin on it. Those matters are sensitive and delicate when one is dealing with intelligence information, and it is better to be right than to fly off at a tangent, as so many people do when they read something in the press. It is better to be balanced and responsible when dealing with such issues. I have no intention of accepting amendments Nos. 12 and 13—we have had that debate—and I have no intention of accepting amendment No. 44. I hope that the hon. Member for Bracknell will withdraw his amendments.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Can the Committee vote on my amendment?

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 5, leave out line 4 and insert— '(b) Commissioners shall consider his case.'. The amendment is intended to ensure that when the Secretary of State suspends the licence of a prisoner who has been released under the terms of the Bill, the case is automatically referred back to the commissioners. It is then for the commissioners to decide whether the licence conditions have been breached, or are likely to be breached, and whether to confirm or revoke the licence. The amendment is required to avoid any possibility of doubt about the procedure that is to be applied if a licence is suspended. Under the Bill, it is for a prisoner to apply to the commissioners to consider the suspension of his licence. However, it would be open to a prisoner to make no such application. Although that is unlikely, if it were to happen the licence would continue to be suspended and would not be revoked. The amendment would ensure that in such cases the commissioners would automatically consider the case, thus removing any possibility of doubt about the prisoner's position.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

The amendment is remarkable. We are not only letting prisoners out but insisting on shoving them out the door if an excuse can be found to do that. Clause 3(2) states: "The Commissioners shall" and clause 9(2) states that the Secretary of State "may". The amendment seeks to remove "may" and insert "shall". On each occasion the words "may" or "shall" are used to the advantage of the criminal. There is no question about it. It is astonishing that it is to be open to individuals to go along and ask the commissioners to take another look at their case and that we cannot even trust them to do that. They must love the Maze, or Maghaberry, or Crumlin Road prison so much that they do not want to leave. They must feel at home in prison—perhaps because they can get a free education inside and they are studying for a degree. They do not want to leave, so here we have a situation in which the individual, whether he likes it or not, will have his case reconsidered and, if at all possible, the door will be opened and he will be shoved out. That is a most remarkable state of affairs.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

I, too, find the amendment rather strange. When a prisoner is released, it will be up to the commissioners to review the situation of that prisoner in the light of the knowledge of the Secretary of State. It appears that the commissioners will have the power to second-guess the Secretary of State's decision. However, the Secretary of State might have information of a security or intelligence nature, which it might not be advisable to share with the commissioners. Therefore, it is not necessary for the prisoner to have the review by the commissioners. In addition, will the Minister clarify whether the prisoner will be taken into custody again before the commissioners are allowed to consider the case, or will the commissioners be allowed to consider the case before the prisoner is taken into custody again?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The amendment is straightforward: it is designed to prevent a situation arising in which the legislation goes into limbo. We are trying to ensure that a flaw within the Bill as it stands is corrected. As I explained, in cases where the Secretary of State suspends the licence of a prisoner released under the legislation, the case will be automatically referred back to the commissioners. That would not happen under the Bill as it stands, even though it was originally intended that the commissioners should decide on the licence conditions. The way in which the commissioners operate is set out elsewhere in the Bill. The nature of the body is such that it has to satisfy international law and the European convention on human rights that individuals are treated fairly, adequately and equitably in the eyes of the law. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) wants to suspend the law entirely in Northern Ireland, but that is not something that the Government want to do—indeed, no democratic Government could do so. We have to ensure that the law is applied at all times, properly and fairly. The amendment is a technical amendment, designed to ensure that the legislation does not remain in limbo. The hon. Gentlemen who have spoken are arguing another point, which is unrelated to my opening explanation.

RELEASE: FURTHER PROVISIONS

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 5, line 41, leave out '(disregarding custody before the sentence was passed)' and insert '(or the start of any period of custody by which the sentence is treated as reduced in accordance with section 26 of the 1968 Act)'.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 deal with two gaps in the accelerated release provisions. Amendment No. 84 is important because it ensures that prisoners who would benefit from the accelerated release provisions must serve at least two years in custody. In particular, it would ensure that prisoners who spend a period of time unlawfully at large would not have that period overlooked. As drafted, the Bill would allow a prisoner who had been unlawfully at large, either as a result of an escape or as a result of failure to return from leave, to be released two years after the commencement of the legislation, regardless of the time actually spent in prison. Clearly, it would be unacceptable for such prisoners to benefit in this way. Amendment No. 83 deals with prisoners who come into custody and are convicted after the legislation has commenced. It will ensure that the time spent in custody awaiting trial counts towards the period that they serve. This is directly in line with established United Kingdom practice in relation to the calculation of sentences. We are therefore ensuring that prisoners' rights are established in terms of UK practice, and amendment No. 84 will ensure that what we intended in the Bill is properly enacted.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister go further and tell us what would happen if the individual murdered someone while escaping from custody or committed another lesser crime on his way out? What would happen with regard to any further sentence to which he might be liable for that further crime?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

My understanding of the legislation is that it would depend on what type of prisoner he was. It would depend on the nature of the licence conditions. We are dealing with two different categories of prisoner—life sentence prisoners and the determinate sentence prisoners. If a prisoner murdered someone on his way out of prison or carried out some other heinous act, and this was known to be so, as opposed to it being something that someone merely said had happened, clearly he would be brought to judgment for the completely new crime that he had committed.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 43, at end insert 'and in particular shall ensure that the accelerated release date for any prisoner is not before the decommissioning of all illegal arms by any organisation of which he is a member or supporter has been verified by any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997.'.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The amendment relates to—

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

It would help the Committee to consider the amendment and to size up the Opposition's attitude if the hon. Gentleman could confirm what is on the tapes, namely: The decision to vote against the bill was tonight confirmed at a meeting of the Tory Shadow Cabinet, although a spokesman for Mr. Hague said that they also reaffirmed their support for the bipartisan approach.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I was not at the meeting, so I do not know. It is as simple as that. Amendment No. 6 relates to our amendment No. 1, which the Committee debated on Monday and deals with clause 3, subsections (8) and (9). Subsection (9)(d) contains words that are taken—although not verbatim—more or less from the paragraph on decommissioning in the agreement. Amendment No. 6 relates to amendment No. 1 in dealing with decommissioning of arms by a certain date, which will be verified by the commission. It is interesting that the Government have continued to ignore the points that have been made by Opposition Members on the accuracy and intent of the wording that was signed up to by all parties to the agreement. Paragraph 3 of the agreement's section on decommissioning states: All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. The wording in our amendment No. 1 simply stated that an organisation is committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations". Therefore, the wording in the agreement and in our amendment No. 1 is pretty much identical. The agreement's section on decommissioning goes on to state: They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement. Our amendment No. 1 went on to say: and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, including any of its own, by 22nd May 2000". That date is, of course, two years after the date of the referendums. We argue yet again that the words in our previous amendment—to which I have already said that amendment No. 6 is related-were essentially the words of the agreement. Our amendment No. 1 did not seek in any way to go outside the words of the agreement, which have been signed up to by all the parties involved. Even at this stage, we ask the Government again to think carefully about the reasons why we intend to press the matter further on Report, and further if necessary. In amendment No. 6, we are simply saying that, before any prisoner can be released, confirmation must come from the commission that the principles and intent of the decommissioning section of the agreement have been adhered to by the signatories to the agreement. Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 deal with clause 17. In those amendments, we are seeking to ensure that, if the Secretary of State uses his or her powers under clause 10(7) to amend any subsection within clause 10, it should not be subject to a negative resolution of the House. We believe that, if a Secretary of State decides to make any changes to the subsections in clause 10, they should be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, a draft having been laid before both Houses. If—as we propose in amendment No. 14—we leave out of the Bill clause 17(2) and add—as we propose in amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17—clause 10(7) in the subsections specified, our objective will be clarified: to ensure that, if the Secretary of State takes a decision or decisions, that decision or decisions should come before both Houses of Parliament for affirmative resolution.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Earlier in the debate, I drew the attention of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) to a press release that you, Mr. Martin, felt had nothing to do with amendment No. 6. I had thought that the press release showed the Opposition's seeking to cherry-pick the provisions they like. I had also thought that it demonstrated something that never happened when the Government were in opposition—seeking to undermine progress in achieving peace. On certain occasions to my knowledge—I could enumerate them—it was necessary to protect the position of the then Secretary of State, who was engaged in negotiations, and to prevent cries for his dismissal for one thing or another. The amendment does precisely what I feared and to which I referred. The Opposition are seeking yet again to rewrite the agreement so as to have a precise linkage between the release of prisoners and decommissioning. The purpose behind the amendment is to rewrite the agreement and to betray the different parties to it. Those parties entered into the agreement on the basis of what was in it, not on the basis of what the Opposition would like to be in it. To say that is not to say that one does not want the decommissioning of arms—of course one does—but to suggest that there must be a direct linkage between an individual and the satisfaction demanded in the amendment on decommissioning is unfair on the individual and, I suggest, unfair to the independent commission on decommissioning. If we read it carefully—

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I shall finish my point and then I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman. If we read the amendment carefully, we find that it states: and in particular shall ensure that the accelerated release date for any prisoner is not before the decommissioning of all illegal arms". That is what the Opposition are asking for now. They are asking not for a token, not for a substantial amount and not for a bit of Semtex here or a kalashnikov there; they are asking for the decommissioning of all illegal arms. Who knows how many illegal arms are held by any paramilitary organisation?

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The security forces know.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

The hon. Gentleman, the hon. and reverend Gentleman who leads for the Democratic Unionist party, says from a sedentary position that the security forces know. If the security forces know the amount of illegal arms that are held, that would suggest their being there with the quartermasters counting the arms as they are put in their concrete bunkers somewhere in County Meath, Kerry or, God help us, perhaps in North Antrim. It is obvious that that is not so and that the security forces could not possibly know.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

rose—

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I shall finish my point and then I shall give way, first, to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and then to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). How can anybody know of all the illegal arms that are held? Who will be satisfied that all illegal arms have been decommissioned? The commission on decommissioning cannot verify that all illegal arms have been decommissioned. It is necessary to depend on information that will necessarily be incomplete. On the basis of the argument that Opposition Members are advancing, paramilitary organisations will say, "This is a list of what we have. We have 13 pikes from 1798, a few muskets from another occasion, a couple of .303s from 1916," and so on. Is that what they will do? How can we be certain that there is not another pike in the thatch? It is—

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The agreement says that.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

The commission cannot be certain. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said, I think, "That is what the agreement says," but it does not. Paragraph 4 states: The Independent Commission will monitor, review and verify progress on decommissioning of illegal arms, and will report to both Governments at regular intervals. Is that the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising? It does not make the independent commission, which could not possibly know whether all arms have been handed in, infallible; it refers only to the "decommissioning of illegal arms".

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

The hon. Gentleman claimed initially that there was no direct connection between prisoner release and decommissioning. He should have listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon when he said clearly that there was such a connection and that it is explicit in the Bill. Our argument with the Prime Minister is not the connection but the fact that it is not explicit in the Bill—and it should be.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I listened carefully to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today. He did not say what the hon. Gentleman alleges. I suggest that he reads the Prime Minister's words very carefully.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

The agreement says: They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums North and South". We did not put that in the agreement because we were not there. The parties that signed the agreement put that there—including the word "all." What is more, the security forces have already informed the Minister how many arms they believe the IRA has, about the IRA's strike capability and of how many arms other organisations have.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. He said that the Minister has been told how many arms the security forces believe the IRA has—they do not know how many arms the IRA holds. That is my first point. Secondly, the agreement states: They … confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums". That statement is qualified by the reference to working "in good faith" to achieve that aim. The amendment says: not before the decommissioning of all illegal arms". It will not matter that the parties have worked in good faith and used such influence as they have because, unless every weapon is put down, nobody will be let out of prison as part of what is surprisingly called accelerated prison release. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has strengthened his position since the last time we discussed this matter: he is now calling for all arms to be handed in. There is no way that the security forces or many of the organisations, given their diffuse nature, will know precisely how many arms are held. If, as the Opposition claim, there is a quartermaster with the Continuity IRA who hands out arms to dissidents, who is to be held responsible for those arms? Who can be certain how many arms are involved unless we know what the quartermaster has passed out? The amendment, quite apart from being illogical, asks people to achieve the impossible. We cannot be certain of ever delivering what the amendment calls for. No man or woman who belonged to an organisation would ever be released because the terms of the amendment are not deliverable or achievable. Such linkage between prisoners and arms is not in the agreement. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is seeking to rewrite the amendment. That is not what representatives of the various loyalist and republican paramilitary factions signed up to when they agreed to an unequivocal ceasefire. They signed up to the agreement, not to the interpretation that Her Majesty's Opposition would like to put on it. The Opposition are cherry-picking. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is putting a danger before the Committee. If one of the signatories does not like some little part of the agreement, will they seek to rewrite it? Some people in the Republic may not like, say, the constitutional clauses, and seek to amend it in legislation. Are they to be allowed to succeed? Will they have the precedent that the Opposition are trying to set? The Opposition are putting the whole agreement at risk by seeking to tamper with what Her Majesty's Government have brought forward.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I support the amendment. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that to accept the amendment would be to betray the parties that had signed the agreement. I suggest that he read the list of names in which the amendment has been tabled. He will see the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who I believe is the leader of one of the parties that signed the agreement. It is vital to emphasise the importance of decommissioning in this process. Decommissioning first came on the scene before the talks got under way—with the report of the international body that was chaired by the former senator, George Mitchell. That international body recommended that the decommissioning of terrorist weapons was an important part of the confidence-building process surrounding political talks. In all the time since that report, not one weapon has been decommissioned by any terrorist organisation. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that we are talking about terrorist organisations, not political parties. The hon. Member for Hull, North is wrong to say that there is no link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners. One of the Government's criteria concerning eligibility for release of prisoners in clause 3 is that a terrorist organisation must be co-operating fully with any Commission established by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. That creates a link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners; the Government themselves have created the link in the Bill. We are simply trying to clarify exactly what co-operating fully with any Commission means. Are hon. Members who oppose the amendment suggesting that "co-operating fully" could mean something less than the decommissioning of weapons? If that is so, let them tell us. It is important that we understand what "co-operating fully" with the independent commission means. The Secretary of State will have to judge whether any of the terrorist organisations is "co-operating fully". How can it be argued that a terrorist organisation is "co-operating fully" on the decommissioning of weapons when it is not decommissioning its weapons? In anyone's terms, a failure to decommission weapons represents a failure fully to co-operate with the independent commission.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

As I understand the situation, there are signatories to the agreement who are said to represent various paramilitary organisations. Let us take the case of signatory X. He tries to use his best efforts to achieve decommissioning by the organisation of which he is supposed to be the political representative, but his fullest and best endeavours fail. What then? He has kept to all the undertakings that he gave in the agreement.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not the political parties but the terrorist organisations that are referred to in clause 3. It does not matter whether Sinn Fein, the Ulster Democratic party or the Progressive Unionist party are using their best endeavours. With regard to the criteria that the Secretary of State must consider, the question is: is the terrorist organisation co-operating fully with the commission? Is the IRA co-operating fully with the independent commission? Sinn Fein does not have prisoners in the gaols; the IRA does. I happen to believe, as I understand the Government do too, that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked—but the question here is whether a prisoner who belongs to a terrorist organisation qualifies for early release under the terms of the Bill. The Secretary of State is required to consider a number of criteria before she can reach a determination whether the organisation to which the individual prisoner belongs qualifies for accelerated release. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Hull, North, the organisation concerned is not the political party but the terrorist organisation. Therefore I will continue to argue that the terrorist organisation must fully co-operate with the commission on disarmament—and surely that must require full decommissioning to take place. If the terrorist organisation to which the prisoner belongs is not decommissioning its weapons, how can one possibly argue that it is co-operating fully with the independent commission? It is important to draw the truth out. I suspect that there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the criteria and that when the Secretary of State comes to consider them they will be fudged.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The hon. Gentleman says that there is a great deal of ambiguity about the Bill, but does he agree that there was no ambiguity when the agreement was sold to the people of Northern Ireland by the Government? They were led to believe that prisoner release—

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr. Martin. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making; the Government need to spell out the details clearly. During the debate on a previous amendment, I asked the Secretary of State to spell out exactly what she means by co-operating fully with the independent commission, but she failed to do so. No one from the Government Benches has yet told the Committee what the Government's interpretation of that phrase is. I ask the Minister again to tell us when he responds whether that phrase means that the terrorist organisations are required to decommission their weapons. Does co-operating fully with the commission mean actual decommissioning of terrorist weapons? I think that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to know. As for the amendment, we have a scenario in which terrorists may be on remand at the moment or still at large, having committed serious offences but not yet having been sentenced for, or perhaps even charged with, offences that they committed before the cut-off date in the Bill. Such an individual—when apprehended, brought before the courts and found guilty of serious crimes, including murder—will be released after two years. That is also true for some who have committed multiple murder. The amendment is entirely reasonable, as it requires that individuals convicted of a serious offence in those circumstances cannot be released until there has been decommissioning of terrorist weapons. That is the least that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect. I hope that the Government will reconsider their approach to the amendment and, in particular, that the Minister will spell out—at long last and clearly—what the Government mean by requiring terrorist organisations to co-operate fully with the independent commission.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I support the amendment, the central point of which is the requirement for the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. Decommissioning has been at the core of controversy in Northern Ireland for a long time. It was the position of Her Majesty's Government when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was Prime Minister that before anyone could get into a talks process there would be a requirement for them to decommission. That was diluted and the Government then indicated that it would be sufficient, on the basis of Washington 3, for organisations to put forward a significant portion of their weaponry as an indicator of their intent, while agreeing to decommission the rest during the talks process. That, of course, was diluted as well and the Government accepted that organisations should enter the talks process on the clear understanding that, during the process, the paramilitary organisations would decommission their illegal weapons. That was diluted and organisations were allowed to remain throughout the whole talks process without decommissioning one bullet, one weapon, one ounce of Semtex or one detonator. We have been told that for the release of prisoners and entry into government, a substantial proportion of weaponry would have to be decommissioned. That was the indication the Prime Minister gave the Leader of the Opposition in the House on 6 May. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that the Opposition might put in the terms of their amendment an undertaking given to them by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. It is hardly odd that the terms of the amendment should be consistent with the Prime Minister's undertaking. I must agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In the agreement—as I have said consistently—there is no requirement for decommissioning, nor is there any sanction if decommissioning does not take place. It makes it clear that organisations must use their best endeavours—but too bad if they do not succeed. There is no punishment for any of the participants if they fail, having used their best endeavours—unless, of course, one accepts the terminology used in the agreement in the section dealing with prisoners, such as where it says that there must be a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Does such a ceasefire have to be interpreted as including the decommissioning of weaponry? One could argue that if people are intending to give up violence, there is no requirement for them to hold on their weaponry. It would not be inconsistent with a total and complete cessation of violence—indeed, it would be a way of demonstrating that they had given up violence for good—if the organisations handed in their illegal weaponry. The people of Northern Ireland were led to believe that that was the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement, because that is what he told them. On that basis, we are entitled to say that the Prime Minister should honour his commitments, not only on the release of prisoners, but on other aspects of the implementation of the agreement, such as the formation of an Executive. The amendment is important, if only as a test of whether the Prime Minister has been as good as his word—it would include in the Bill the very words that he agreed accurately reflected his position. Again, I wait to see whether the Government will include in the Bill the undertakings that the Prime Minister has given to the House.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

As we have had a detailed debate on this group of amendments, it is worth setting out the background to clause 10. As has been said in previous debates, the purpose of the Bill as a whole is to implement the prisoners section of the Good Friday agreement, as negotiated by the Northern Ireland parties in Belfast and as endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland. Those are the key facts. Paragraph 3 of that section of the agreement said that the intention would be that should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State placed in the Library a copy of a memorandum on the release of prisoners, which was circulated to all the parties in the negotiations. Paragraph 7 of the memorandum said: Most eligible prisoners would be released within two years. At that point those prisoners still in custody would be automatically released if otherwise eligible for release under the scheme. This date would be set in legislation. The Secretary of State would have power to bring the date forward or to put it back depending on the circumstances and progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society. Clause 10 reflects those arrangements. I recognise at the outset that, in what can only be described as an unusual Bill, the clause is exceptional. However, it reflects what was negotiated and accepted by the parties in the negotiations in Belfast and what has now been endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. It is important that the prisoners element of the agreement, like the agreement as a whole, is set in the clear context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole. Like my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, I have said repeatedly that the agreement stands or falls as a package. If there is progress in implementing some elements of the agreement, but no progress in implementing others, the agreement as a whole will not work. It is essential that the arrangement for the release of remaining eligible prisoners after two years, as provided for in the clause, is clearly understood to be in the context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole. There are important safeguards to ensure that that is so, including the general safeguards in the Bill: the Secretary of State can suspend the release of prisoners generally at any time; she can, under clause 3, exclude from benefit prisoners who support a terrorist organisation; and she is required to keep that under regular review. In addition to those general powers, the Secretary of State has the power under clause 10(7) to move the two-year cut-off point forwards or backwards—the clause provides the Secretary of State with powers to delay the automatic release of prisoners at the two-year point if she considers it necessary.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister said that the parties to the agreement should go along with all sections of the agreement, but will he deny that, under the Bill as drafted, at the end of two years, with all the prisoners released, it is still possible that no decommissioning will have taken place?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I shall deal with those circumstances, because that is an important element—[Interruption.] I do not see what is so funny about it, and I do not know why the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) finds decommissioning so funny, as it is vitally important. I have said that the provision is set firmly in the context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole and, as the memorandum that my right hon. Friend placed in the Library of the House said, in the context of progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society. A number of hon. Members rightly drew attention to the commitments on decommissioning, which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned. In particular, paragraph 3 of the section on decommissioning, on page 45 of the agreement, binds anyone who supports it to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and to using any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

rose—

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Gentleman had a good run at his argument. If he lets me expand mine, we can move on and deal with the points on which he is dissatisfied—[Interruption.] It is better that we explain the overall context of the debate, so that we can then try to understand the points at issue. The commitments set out in the agreement and whether they are adhered to are clearly relevant to whether the circumstances exist and whether progress to a normal peaceful society has been sufficient to justify the release of all remaining eligible prisoners in two years' time. Progress on the decommissioning element of the agreement is essential to implementation of the agreement as a whole. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech at Balmoral on 14 May: These factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgement—a judgement which will necessarily become more rigorous over time". I well understand the arguments that have been advanced for amendment No. 6 and the general thrust of the arguments advanced in the debate. Nothing in the clause as it stands prevents the Secretary of State from taking full account of progress, or the lack of it, in implementation of the decommissioning section of the agreement, in deciding whether to change the two-year cut-off point. Indeed, as again has been repeatedly stressed, progress in implementing all elements of the agreement is critical if the agreement as a whole is to work.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I should like to clarify something. The agreement is binding upon the participants—the signatories—but the Bill relates not to the signatories or the participants in the talks, but to individual prisoners and the terrorist organisations to which they belong. My question for the Minister is: what do the Government mean by those organisations being required to co-operate fully with the independent commission? That is what we are asking. We are interested not in what the participants to the talks are doing in the context of the Bill, but in the terrorist organisations to which the prisoners belong. The question is, how do the Government interpret fully co-operating with the independent commission on the part of the terrorist organisations? That has nothing to do with using one's influence. Does it mean decommissioning taking place?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Of course, one of the conditions is a requirement to be co-operating with the decommissioning body. Another is the point that I was just stressing, which the hon. Gentleman has not taken on board—I do not know whether that is because of an unwillingness to listen to the strength of the case that is being advanced by the Prime Minister. The judgment will necessarily become more rigorous in time. The question is, at what point does it happen? As we get closer to the two-year point, those who will be judging whether the agreement is being properly applied will judge whether there has been movement in that period. Therefore, the judgment will become more rigorous, the closer we get to that point. By any definition, that must be the worst scenario. The best scenario, which all of us want, is progress. The more people talk up the possibility that progress will never happen, the more they give sustenance to those who do not want it. They give support to those who want to wreck what the agreement has set out to achieve. Language is important to ensuring that we quantify exactly what the agreement says, and the Bill does that. Prisoner releases will be carried on the back of that, and the test to be applied will become more rigorous over time.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am willing to participate in debate with him in the way that he wants, but he has had a good chance to speak. I am trying to set out a structured argument, so that we can have a reasoned debate.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Answer my question.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am answering it in my way, and in the way in which it should properly be answered for those who want to see movement towards a peaceful society on the basis of an agreement voted for by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

No. Those who want to wreck what we are trying to achieve as we deal with difficult and complex issues to take forward the agreement just weeks after its endorsement by the people of Northern Ireland could, if they gave the right type of support to what we are trying to achieve, help us to move forward in a more structured way. The agreement used the phrase, should the circumstances allow it rather than establishing a specific precondition. So did the memorandum placed in the Library of the House, which used the phrase, depending on the circumstances and progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

No, but I shall in a moment. The hon. Member for Belfast, East constantly goes on about what the Prime Minister has said. The hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister has conned the people of Northern Ireland, and he uses the press in Northern Ireland to support that. He does not of course use the Irish News; he probably would not want to quote that paper. Therefore, let me give him a quotation from last night's edition of the Belfast Telegraph, which said: The Conservative Party is going down a dangerous road by warning members will vote against the bill on prisoner releases when it reaches its final stage in the Commons on Thursday. The paper is a substantial voice of opinion within Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister said to ignore the press.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Ignore the press.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Let me remind hon. Members what I have said about the press. I said that we should ignore speculation in the press. The point about the Belfast Telegraph is addressed particularly to the hon. Member for North—East Cambridgeshire, so that he can pass it on to the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who cited The Times to justify his position. The Belfast Telegraph has expressed a quality judgment, and has taken into account what the Prime Minister actually said. The leader goes on to say: Yet Mr. Blair made no explicit linkage between decommissioning and prisoner releases, as the Tories are now demanding. The extensive, well-argued, cogent leader is not without criticism of those engaged in the process, which makes it a healthy read. It concludes: No one likes the Agreement in its entirety, but it still represents Northern Ireland's best chance of securing a lasting peace. I think—indeed, I know—that that is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for on 22 May. That is what they said when they endorsed the agreement.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I have the memorandum that the Secretary of State placed in the Library and I have read paragraph 7, which deals with progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society. The Prime Minister has spoken several times of organisations giving up violence for good, and the words "unequivocal ceasefire" in the Bill are important. Will the Minister answer the simple question that I put to him about 20 minutes ago? Under the terms of the Bill, is it possible, at the end of the two years, that all prisoners could be released without any decommissioning having taken place? Yes or no?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I wish that the debate were as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman has an extremely responsible position, speaking for a major party that was involved, month after month, year after year, in trying to advance the peace process, through secret dealings with the IRA and a range of other means, with the full support of my party in opposition. We gave him every encouragement to understand the sensitivities and difficulties in a spirit of bipartisanship. It would be nice to think that those of us who genuinely want a peaceful society could simply decide by fiat that decommissioning was to take place tomorrow, but that will not happen. If he does not understand that decommissioning, by its very nature, must be voluntary, he should not hold his position as a spokesperson on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about how we could attest to the words in the agreement and elsewhere, and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the information that the security forces provide to Ministers and to the Prime Minister on what equipment and arms paramilitary organisations are understood to hold, although we never discuss the level or basis of that knowledge, because to do so would give information to those organisations. Opposition Members may play fast and loose with the issue, and those who are campaigning against the agreement have the democratic right to try to wreck it. If they do not want to implement the express wish of the people of Northern Ireland, they need not help to do so.

Jeffrey Donaldson (UUP, Lagan Valley)

They want decommissioning.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

There is no argument among any Members of Parliament on that point: that is the objective that we all desire. I hope that that intervention does not imply that the Government do not want weapons to be decommissioned. The question is how to achieve that objective. Conditions on the matter in the legislation are likely to be reflected in subsequent legislation for a settlement and we shall have to take account of the key elements of the Belfast agreement. We must deal with all those factors in a structured way and relate them one to the other. On our first day in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it is also true to say that underlying those explicit links are deeper and more fundamental understandings. The Government are in no doubt that a fundamental element of those underlying understandings is that those who seek to benefit from the agreement can do so only on the basis of a genuine and unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful means, now and in the future. That is fundamental."—[Official Report, 15 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 72.] I have endeavoured to make it clear that the Government have much sympathy with the concerns expressed by those who support amendment No. 6 and the thinking underlying it. We can contemplate the operation of the two-year cut-off point only in the context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole. I hope that the subtlety as well as the clarity of that explanation is understood by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who speaks—(Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman seek a yes or no answer. Does he want another lecture on what his Government did and the subtleties that they had to be involved in to try to achieve momentum towards peace? 10 pm We could be absolutist and approach the debate as a black-and-white argument. If Her Majesty's official Opposition are going down that route, they are moving rapidly into the ranks of those who want to wreck the Belfast agreement. They will be linking up with hon. Members who have no wish to take it forward on a structured and coherent basis, which is what the majority of the people of Northern Ireland–71 per cent.—voted for on 22 May. The electorate knew that there were subtleties in the argument, and they knew what they were doing when they voted in that way. They did not operate on the simplistic notions with which the hon. Gentleman has approached the issue.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I did not paint my question in black and white. I asked for a yes or no answer, but I used the word "possible". I did not ask him whether there would definitely be decommissioning; I just asked whether it was possible that, at the end of two years, all prisoners could have been released with no decommissioning having taken place. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev Ian Paisley), the Prime Minister said: Certainly we will give effect to the pledges that have been made prior to the assembly elections. That is absolutely right. As I have made clear throughout and do so again now, the provisions in relation to decommissioning and what I said about it before the referendum campaign stand and must properly be put in the legislation."—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 366.1 The only reference to decommissioning is in clause 3(9), which mentions "co-operating fully" with the commission. There is no mention in the appropriate part of the Bill of the pledges on decommissioning given in the agreement. How does the Minister equate what the Prime Minister said with putting that properly in the Bill?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Those who have followed the debate will realise that we are saying, "Oh yes it does," while the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members from other Opposition parties are saying, "Oh no it doesn't." The hon. Gentleman was a Northern Ireland Minister. He understands the difficulties and the complexities of the issue, although when we were debating other legislation, he told me that he was never the Minister with responsibility for security, so I should not ask him difficult questions on such matters. If he brushed up on just how difficult this issue is, he could perhaps represent his once great party properly at the Dispatch Box. The Bill has been carefully constructed, and it upholds in their entirety the assurances given by the Prime Minister on 14 May in his Balmoral speech and subsequently. Those who say that it does not are those who want to wreck the agreement, not take it forward. That is the important linkage with which we are dealing. We are saying that there are specific powers under the clause and in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make decisions—depending on the circumstances, on the judgment at the time and on how the agreement has been implemented, whether in full or in part. Let me pose a hypothetical question. What would happen if a judgment that could wreck the agreement was made on a Thursday, without the people who made it knowing that an organisation may have been prepared to change its position on Friday? Hon. Members should think about that carefully. There must be careful consideration and judgment, and we have to move forward on that basis. The Bill is clearly in line with the agreement and clearly in line with the commitments given by the Prime Minister. We have had a detailed debate, but hon. Members may wish to return to parade again their wish to see the Belfast agreement destroyed. That, of course, is the right of a democratic society. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire raised issues relating to amendments Nos. 14 to 17. I understand his argument, which was that the power to vary the two-year cut-off point was very significant—not least for the reasons that we have been discussing. I am therefore prepared to accept his amendment and those tabled with it, which would make any order varying the two-year cut-off point subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution in Parliament. Scrutiny of what the Secretary of State does will take place here, in the House. That is where it will be judged whether or not the agreement has been implemented in full.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It would be wrong for us to close this part of the debate without giving the Minister a further opportunity to reflect on—and, indeed, put right—something that he may well regret tomorrow morning. On two occasions during his speech, he was given the opportunity to answer a simple question. Many people in Northern Ireland signed up to the agreement—many within the 71 per cent. about whom the Minister continues to talk—because they believed that there would be actual decommissioning before any prisoners would be released, or before their representatives would be in government. They believed that that would happen before prisoners were released. The question asked by the Opposition spokesman was not whether the Minister believed that that would happen before prisoners were released. The question was whether he believed that, after two years—after all the prisoners had gone—one bullet would have been handed over. The Minister could not answer that question. I am not sure whether the Minister appreciates the impact that that will have in Northern Ireland—the knowledge that not only will no guns, no bullets, no Semtex and no detonators be handed over before the prisoners get out, but they may not be handed over at all.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

My Secretary of State tells me not to respond to what has just been said, and I will pay due attention to that, once I have made one comment. What does the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) know about the decommissioning legislation? Does he know when it was passed? Probably not. In fact, it was dealt with on 11 March. I dealt with it in Committee. Since then, I have had meetings with my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland to speed progress, and meetings with the decommissioning body. It should not be said that I, or any of my colleagues, have not been trying to remove the gun, the bomb, the bullet and Semtex from the face of Northern Ireland. We have, as a Government, 13,500 RUC officers on the estates of Northern Ireland. We have 17,000 members of Her Majesty's forces trying to tackle terrorism. This Government, and, indeed, past Governments, should not be accused of being soft on terrorism. The major point is that we are determined to defeat, as best we can, the scourge of terrorism that has blighted the face of Northern Ireland for the past 30 years. The agreement is a major step towards achieving that. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would understand that, rather than living in the past. Let us begin to look towards the future.

Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for accepting amendments Nos.14 to 17. I am glad that we did not need to debate them for three hours; at least the strength of our points has been taken on board. We had a prolonged discussion on amendment No. 6. Twice the Minister was asked a simple question about possibilities, and twice he evaded giving a simple answer. If it is his judgment that he did not give a straight answer, he will have to face the consequences of how that is played in the press tomorrow, here and in Northern Ireland. That is his decision. The Opposition are not seeking to wreck the agreement. We support the Government on all parts of the agreement, including the section on decommissioning. We would not have supported the Government if there had not been a section on decommissioning. We have never accused the Government of not wanting decommissioning along the lines that we have proposed. There is no accusation that the Government's intent regarding decommissioning is not strong. That is not the question we are posing. We are merely asking whether, under the legislation, prisoners could be released at the end of two years without decommissioning having taken place. The answer is yes, but the Minister will not reply to that simple question. We shall not pursue this matter tonight, but we may revisit it on another occasion. We thank the Minister for his concessions on amendments Nos. 14 to 17, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

NOTICE OF DECISIONS

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 17, at end insert— '(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the Commissioners shall not have to give reasons where the decision to refuse is based on information received from the Royal Ulster Constabulary or Security Services and where these organisations warrant that revealing the information would be prejudicial to national security or put at risk the lives of individuals.' Clause 11 causes me concern as it is drafted. The commissioners can, quite rightly, refuse an application. The clause forces the commissioners to give reasons for their decision. The rules in schedule 2 permit the Secretary of State or the Royal Ulster Constabulary to give information or evidence to the commission on behalf of the security services. The Secretary of State or the Chief Constable of the RUC would have responsibility for giving information to the commission that may lead it to determine that the person concerned is still a danger to the public or is involved in terrorism. The commission may then refuse to grant that person's application for release. The commission is under an obligation to give reasons to the individual. It would be highly detrimental to the security forces, to the RUC and to national security if the commission were forced to give reasons that revealed potentially confidential information supplied to it by the Secretary of State or the RUC. Paragraph 5 of schedule 2 allows the Secretary of State to make rules for the provision about evidence and information, including provision for the giving of evidence by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and the RUC. The Government may say that the rules they make under schedule 2 will deal with the problem. I should be interested to know whether the Government believe that any rules they may make by statutory instrument or order under schedule 2 could set aside the provisions in clause 11, which require reasons to be given to prisoners in those circumstances. I will be delighted if it is the Secretary of State's view that the security services, the Secretary of State herself and the RUC will be protected when they give evidence or information to the commission, that the information will be kept confidential and that the sources of their information will be protected and will not be revealed. As the Minister stressed, sensitive issues are involved. One does not talk about the RUC's knowledge of weapons because that could reveal sources. Similarly, the RUC may not wish to reveal to the commission its sources of information on people whom it thinks are terrorists. Those sources must be protected, and reasons must not be given for doing that. Is there a mechanism in the Bill to prevent reasons from being given? Clause 11 does not permit exceptions. Will the rules to be made under schedule 2 be ultra vires because clause 11 does not permit rules that would make exemptions from it?

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

We do not yet have the rules to which schedule 2 (5) specifically refers, because we are framing the legislation as we go along, accepting Opposition amendments as well as tabling our own, and that may have an impact on the rules. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who may be concerned about this matter that, through the normal processes, we always protect those who give information. We would never put at risk anyone who was acting in the interests of security. We are mindful of the need to protect such people and, in the light of my assurances, I do not think that the amendment is necessary. We give the right hon. Gentleman the absolute assurances that information and those who give it will be protected under the rules, which will be made available in draft form in due course.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

I am grateful to the Minister. I would never question the Government's integrity on these matters. We should do our absolute utmost to protect sources of information. I was merely concerned about the mechanisms, the legal procedures, in the Bill that would allow the rules to ignore the provisions of clause 11. That clause seems to provide for no exceptions: reasons must be given. I hope that the Minister will seek legal advice about whether an amendment, perhaps one better drafted than mine, is necessary. For example, it could state that reasons would be given in all circumstances except where the Secretary of State has drafted rules under schedule 2. The Chief Constable of the RUC has to ensure that none of his officers or people acting on their behalf put at risk. Is there not a danger that he might not want to give information if he thought that the rules were inadequate? If he has the slightest fear that it would be possible, perhaps under judicial review, for the commissioners to be ordered to reveal the sources of information, he may decide that it would be better to let a terrorist be released than to provide it. That is a technical question, and I am happy to let the Minister reflect on it and perhaps answer it tomorrow, if that is appropriate.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

The right hon. Gentleman adopts a wise approach in allowing me to reflect on that matter, because it involves some sensitive issues. He asked whether schedule 2 and clause 11 are incompatible. I shall reflect on that, and if there is any weakness in the legislation we shall amend it. I am satisfied that it is robust enough to achieve the protection we seek through the rules. Obviously, we have carefully considered the issue because of the matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised. We shall always reflect on valid points, and if there is a weakness, it will be corrected.

David Maclean (Conservative, Penrith and The Border)

In view of the Minister's reasonable response, and on the basis that he will reflect on it, I am delighted to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

INADMISSIBILITY

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 6, line 40, after 'section 5', insert 'of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or of'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 86 and 87.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

This is one of those explanations that is difficult to set forth, because it is extremely legalistic. However, I hope that the Committee will bear with me, because it is worth explaining in detail what these Government amendments would do. As it stands, clause 13 provides that evidence and information given by prisoners to the commissioners are not admissible in certain proceedings. The proceedings in question relate to offences of membership of a proscribed organisation and other activities consistent with membership. Obviously, no offences of violence are listed. This is to allow prisoners to present their cases to the commissioners without fear that statements they might make will be used in evidence in the proceedings in question. It does not grant immunity from prosecution for the offences in question. The amendments simply add to clause 13 certain proceedings that apply in Great Britain for which provision is already made in clause 13 in relation to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 85 adds a reference in clause 13 to section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, as the clause already refers to the equivalent Northern Ireland provision—section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. The offence in section 5 of the 1967 Act and the Great Britain equivalent make it an offence to conceal information about an arrestable offence. The effect of the amendment is that evidence given to the commissioners will be inadmissible in proceedings for those offences, but only in so far as the offences relate to an offence of membership of a proscribed organisation, or other activities consistent with membership. Amendment No. 86 adds a reference in clause 13 to sections 93H and 931 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and sections 18 and 19 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, as the clause already refers to the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions—articles 50 and 51 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Those provisions are concerned with investigations into whether a person has benefited from criminal conduct. The effect of the amendment is that evidence given to the commissioners will be inadmissible in the investigations in question, but this will not, of course, prevent such investigations from taking place. Amendment No. 87 adds a reference in clause 13 to section 93J of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 20 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, as, again, the clause already refers to the equivalent Northern Ireland provision, namely, article 54 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Those provisions are concerned with court orders for the disclosure of information held by Government Departments. The effect of the amendment is that evidence given to the commissioners will not be capable of being the subject of such a court order. Again, however, there is nothing in the amendments to prevent such court orders being made.

SENTENCES PASSED OUTSIDE NORTHERN IRELAND

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

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

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

I am sorry that it has taken the Committee so long to reach this stage. When I tabled amendment No. 91, I was unaware that the Government were intending to table new clause 5 and, in particular, new schedule 1, which meets many of my concerns. However, it might assist the House if I briefly set out those concerns. Is it accepted that it is wrong to treat offences committed in Britain as somehow worse than similar offences for which someone was convicted as a result of what happened in Northern Ireland in the past? It is essential that there should be some consistency, which is why I raised this issue in the first place. The Government new schedule refers to prisoners convicted in Britain and then transferred to Northern Ireland, but there are concerns about how cases involving someone who has been convicted in this country and who is still imprisoned here but who is widely considered to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice will be dealt with. I cite as an example the case of John Kinsella. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments, but there is a body of opinion that feels that he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice. He has served a considerable proportion of his sentence—indeed, more than a third of it—so, had he been transferred to Northern Ireland, or had he come from Northern Ireland in the first place, his case would have been dealt with within the terms of the Government's proposals. There also seem to be a disproportionate number of Irish prisoners in Britain who are the victims of miscarriages of justice. The evidence is there, and the Home Office must be well aware of it, because of the number of cases being investigated. One in particular that comes to mind is that of Danny McNamee, who was convicted on very dubious evidence. A raft of information has been handed to the Home Office which suggests that Mr. McNamee is innocent. He has served almost half his sentence, so, again, he ought to come within the ambit of the Bill, especially within the terms of the Government new clause and new schedule. There is widespread concern about the safety of such convictions. We must address miscarriages of justice as well as the treatment of people who have been convicted where there is no dispute about there having been a miscarriage of justice. There is an undertaking in the Bill that they will be treated differently because of the nature of their offences. The Bill is about looking forward to a more peaceful future in which we recognise the motives of people who have committed offences, but I am concerned about the number of people who are wrongly accused of committing offences which they clearly did not commit, for whom people are prepared to campaign, and who, indeed, attest to their own innocence. We should not forget such people, and I hope that either the Secretary of State or the Minister will reassure me on that point.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I wish to speak against clause 15 stand part and in support of new clause 5 and new schedule 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) recognised that his amendment has now been overtaken by the Government new clause and new schedule. He raised several issues which are not covered in the Bill. Any matters relating to alleged miscarriages of justice are matters for the Criminal Cases Review Commission, so there is a mechanism whereby such matters can be fully considered and any miscarriages of justice, if there are any, put right.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

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

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

We are dealing with a very complex matter—the provisions on transferred prisoners. As I said earlier in the debate, I cannot deal now with cases of those who are alleging miscarriages of justice. There is a danger that we are getting into the details of such cases. However, as the matter is complex, 1 shall write to my hon. Friend on it and explain the position. As I told the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), if the Bill contains any specific weaknesses on the matter, we shall attempt to correct them. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that explanation. Taken together, new clause 5 and new schedule 1 fully and clearly state in the Bill our intention on transferred prisoners. Although it was thought that explanation of our intentions would have to await a draft order, that is no longer the case. The new clause and new schedule are intended to ensure that prisoners who have been transferred to Northern Ireland can be treated as much as possible as if they had been convicted and sentenced in Northern Ireland, and that the same savings and safeguards apply. Specifically, were the Bill's arrangements to lapse, the new clause and new schedule would ensure that life sentence prisoners who have been given a restricted transfer to Northern Ireland will continue to be dealt with under English or Scottish release arrangements. I therefore commend the new clause and the new schedule to the Committee.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I must protest at the way in which the matter has been handled. The matter of sentences passed outside Northern Ireland was originally dealt with in the Bill in clause 15—"Miscellaneous"—which contained about 26 lines of text. It was then dealt with by new clause 5, which has two lines of text, and then by a new schedule—which appeared only yesterday—that has two full pages of text. It is unreasonable for anyone to say that, at such short notice, we have had time to wade through all the text. The issue is complex, and has many aspects. If the Government were planning to include the provisions in the Bill, why did they not do so initially, so that we might have considered them—their general principle—in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading? If they had done so, we should have been able last weekend to examine the provisions, and then to reach conclusions on whether we should agree to the new clause and new schedule. I therefore hope that the provisions will be considered very carefully in the other place, and that any necessary amendment will be made to them. The matter has been dealt with in a completely unsatisfactory manner.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The Bill has been severely guillotined, yet pages—about which we knew nothing when the guillotine was agreed to—are being added to it. The House's business managers saw to it that Northern Ireland Members did not know about the guillotine motion, which was dealt with on a Thursday night. We were never informed about it. One hon. Member was informed about it, but he saw to it that his colleagues would not be so informed. It is in his interest that the Bill is passed. It is unfair that a Bill that has been so severely guillotined should have pages added to it by the Government, who now say that we should stick to that guillotine. It is completely unfair. The Minister can laugh if he likes but it is surely not parliamentary procedure to have undigested legislation passing through the House of Commons. For the Minister to laugh and say to us, "Yes, that is what you will get," does not bode well for democratic debate in this place. Surely the Government would be keen to declare what they want so that we may understand their policy and have the opportunity to comment on it. In the time that is available to us, it is impossible to comment on those matters.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Perhaps it is worth while explaining the situation. The matters set forth in the new clause and the new schedule were dealt with within the agreement anyway. It had always been our intention to ensure that what was contained within that part of the agreement was fully reflected in the proposed legislation that we are considering. The problem is that it relates to jurisdictions outwith Northern Ireland—namely, England, Wales and Scotland. These are complex matters in terms of definitions in finding equivalent offences. We sought to ensure that the clarifications were properly defined to satisfy the Law Officers in the jurisdictions of England, Scotland and Wales and that they were before the House of Commons at as early a stage as possible. If those matters had proved so complex that the difficulties could not be properly squared, we may have been dealing with them in the other place. We have tried to bring them forward as early as possible. It has been a question of timing. As I have said, we have been dealing with complex issues. I apologise if hon. Members think that they have somehow been disadvantaged, but every political party in Northern Ireland was offered the full opportunity to be taken through the Bill in its entirety. If there had been an area of concern—

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

rose—

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

Hold on. Let me explain. It was simply a matter of contacting my office. We could have taken hon. Members through any doubts or questions that they may have had about the application of these provisions. As hon. Members know, we have been very open in the way in which we have brought forward this legislation. We have tried to consult and to amend the Bill as it has developed over the weeks. We had a commitment to try to get the Bill on to the statute book by the end of June. Of course, we shall not achieve that. However, we shall get it on to the statute book as soon as possible. Again, that is set out in the agreement. If hon. Members feel that they have been disadvantaged by the way in which those matters have been handled, I ask them to reflect on the way in which they have approached them. If they had approached my office, we could have taken them through the details of these large amendments.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

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

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

My party saw the Minister about the Bill. We did not see a draft of the Bill when we consulted him, and he did not know then what the new schedule would be, or what the part of the Bill would be that is now under discussion. The hon. Gentleman says that he had to wait so that the Law Officers in the other jurisdictions could come to an agreement. We can well accept that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has apologised to the Committee, including the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. It would be shabby if controversial legislation were put before the House of Commons in this way over and over again. The Minister has a deep difference with the Northern Ireland Members sitting on the Bench that I occupy, including all the Unionist Members present this evening. Some have been mentioned, but they did not even turn up to the meeting that has been referred to, to put their views. It would be wrong if that were done over and again to the people of Northern Ireland. I accept the Minister's apology. However, I hope that, in the future, we shall have the opportunity at least to read the Bill that we are supposed to discuss in the Chamber.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

I find these arguments slightly amazing. The point of a Committee of the whole House is to allow amendments to be put—the Government can even move amendments; that is not against the rules—and accepted by the Committee. There is nothing extraordinary about that. Therefore, the Democratic Unionists' expressions of amazement are ludicrous—to put it mildly. I moved amendment No. 91 because I wished to draw attention to particular aspects of the legislation that I thought needed further examination. I am pleased that the Government have tabled new clause 5 and new schedule 1, which go a long towards meeting my concerns, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I appreciated the way that he described his new clause and new schedule as "taking over" my amendment—I hope that that is a sign of my new-found influence over the Government in those matters. I can offer them further advice on other subjects, if they wish it. That is no problem: my door is always open and I can offer advice at any time. I could draw attention to several other issues, but I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Lord, by straying wide of the clause under consideration. I look forward to receiving the Minister's letter on the subjects that I have raised, which I recognise are very complicated. However, I hope that he recognises also that I have drawn attention to two serious miscarriages of justice—namely, McNamee and John Kinsella—and I hope that that information will be conveyed to both the Home Office and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Miscarriages of justice do no one any good because locking up the wrong person allows a criminal to go free. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

ORDERS AND RULES

EXTENT

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 9, line 5, leave out 'and 15' and insert `, (Information for victims) and 15'.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

During the Second Reading debate, several hon. Members drew attention to the plight of victims and their need to be given some idea of when offenders would be released. That point was also raised by the noble Lord Alderdice and members of the Alliance party, who made powerful representations on behalf of victims. Victims of an offence or their families should have the right to know when perpetrators of offences are likely to reappear in public as a consequence of their release under the Bill before the Committee. When the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised the matter, I said that I would be happy to consider further questions on the issue, with a view to tabling a Government amendment to tackle that point. I have done that: an amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fulfils my commitment. The amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State, if it is requested—that is an important point—to provide victims of an offence and members of their families with information about the prisoner sentenced for that offence. That would of course include the date on which the prisoner is to be released, if that has been set. It would also include information about whether the prisoner has made an application under the legislation, and whether it has been accepted or refused. The Secretary of State would not be required to make information available if she believes that it would put a prisoner at risk. That is an important and necessary safeguard. I should like to make one or two other points but, in view of the time available and the fact that I understand that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who raised this issue in the first place, wants to comment in the few remaining seconds, I shall not.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Liberal Democrats are extremely grateful to the Minister—first, for allowing us so much time to respond, and secondly, and more importantly, for including this very important issue in the Bill. All the issues that have been debated tonight are incredibly important, but this element of the Bill redresses the balance for those whose lives have been wrecked as a result of terrorism. Until now, the Bill was all about the people who had perpetrated crimes and the arrangements for releasing them from prison. The amendment and the new clause redress the balance; they say that Parliament is genuinely concerned about the victims. We would place a proviso on new clause 3(2), which we should like to follow up on Report. Although some problems surround that proviso, tonight is clearly not the time to raise them. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I say to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who spoke on behalf of the bereaved in Northern Ireland, that they will in no way think that the amendment and the new clause redress the balance. The hon. Gentleman may not have meant that the amendment and the new clause fully redress the balance, but if the Committee and the House think that informing people that those who murdered their loved ones are getting out of prison does anything for those victims' sorrow, darkness and sadness, there is something very wrong. I want to say that strongly on behalf of the people whom I represent, who have gone through the darkest of all tragedies. Some of them are mere vegetables today; their loved ones have to attend to them. To one such victim, who has been in a coma for a very long time and whose wife has to stand at his bed and attend to his every need, the amendment and the new clause will never balance anything. There is much dispute about whether providing information to victims is a good or bad thing. Perhaps it is better for people not to know that the person who carried out such an act is being released from prison. Such knowledge could put more fear into their hearts. None the less, I am quite happy that applying for the information should be a matter for the relatives. The Committee should not think that it can balance the books just by accepting the amendment and the new clause.

Adam Ingram (Labour, East Kilbride)

That is not the intention of the Government amendment and the new clause. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) does not have a monopoly on compassion; he never has had. This issue is one of those particularly difficult ones. That is why the Government set up the commission under Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. I have been charged to take forward some of the deeply hurtful issues to try to find a way of making them hold. The amendment and the new clause represent one of the ways in which we have given manifest support to that effort. It will not solve all the problems, but it may just begin to address them for some of the people if they so wish. I ask the hon. Gentleman to have a bit more compassion in his heart; to understand what we are trying to achieve rather than condemning it out of hand.

INFORMATION FOR VICTIMS

REVOCATION OF DECLARATION

SENTENCES PASSED OUTSIDE NORTHERN IRELAND

COMMISSIONERS' PROCEDURE

Eligibility for release

Equivalent offence

Effect of declaration

Life prisoners: specified dates

Restricted transfers

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)