The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), on 17 March 2014, Official Report, column 368W, I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003, Official Report, column 895W, by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley—namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the scheme.

In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act—that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or

to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 makes the encouragement, including glorification of terrorism, a criminal offence. Any investigations into allegations of encouraging, including the glorification of terrorism, are of course entirely matters for the police, while decisions on prosecution of such offences are the responsibility of the Public Prosecution Service.

The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), on 17 March 2014, Official Report, column 368W, I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003, Official Report, column 895W, by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley—namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the scheme.

In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act—that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or

to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), on 17 March 2014, Official Report, column 368W, I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003, Official Report, column 895W, by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley—namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the scheme.

In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act—that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or

to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014, Official Report, column 762W, was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.

Records indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the Ministry of Justice’s “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”, published in October 2009.

In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), on 17 March 2014, Official Report, column 368W, I repeated an answer given on 20 March 2003, Official Report, column 895W, by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member for Lagan Valley—namely that 18 individuals had been granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.

In relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as the spirit of the scheme.

In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the Belfast agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act—that for a certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving two years of their sentences.

The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related cases are summarised as follows:

to correct an anomaly in the treatment of an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;

to release prisoners who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast agreement had they not transferred to a different jurisdiction;

to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast agreement had they not served sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or

to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled at the time they were committed.

The names of the 16 individuals granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.

I first became aware of the issue on receipt of advice from officials and a draft response to recent parliamentary questions. I have asked for an urgent review of the historical records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997 and this is now being conducted.

Al-Shabaab issued public threats against Kenya following its military intervention in Somalia in 2011. A number of terrorist attacks in Kenya since then have been attributed to al-Shabaab, including the September 2013 attack on the Westgate shopping centre in which 67 people were killed. We are aware of the media reports that al-Shabaab were behind the recent attacks in Kenya.

Iran’s known support for militant groups across the middle east remains cause for grave concern, and it rather undermines President Rouhani’s stated desire to improve Iran’s relations with its neighbours. The UK will continue to work with allies to ensure a suitable response to Iran’s destabilising activities.

Iran’s position as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism was highlighted once again in March when Israel intercepted the Gaza-bound Klos-C ship with a deadly cargo of advanced long-range rockets. What estimate has my hon. Friend made of Iran’s continued support for terrorism and the effect that that has on our security and strategic interests in the middle east?

First, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of these great sporting events—both the one he mentioned in Northern Ireland and, of course, the Tour de France, which will be starting in Leeds. That will be a great moment for Yorkshire and for the whole United Kingdom. We should do all we can to promote these events, although we should perhaps draw the line at appearing in lycra at either of them.

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue about terrorist victims. We discussed recently the important issue of trying to ensure greater assistance from Libya over Semtex that is still being found in Northern Ireland as we speak today. As for his other remarks, we should be proud of the fact that a free country has an independent judiciary, an independent legal system and an independent police service and that they decide who to arrest, who to question and who to charge. That is how it must remain.

Later this week, the opening stages of the Giro d’Italia will take place in Northern Ireland. The Tour de France is also coming to Yorkshire. Such world-class sporting events allow us to showcase our region, boost tourism and

grow the local economy. Does the Prime Minister agree that as we seek to build a more prosperous and better future for all our people in Northern Ireland it is vital that the suffering and hurt of the victims is never forgotten and that whether it happened one year ago, 10 years ago or 42 years ago, justice must be pursued and the police must be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead?

I would say to the hon. Lady, who I know takes a very close interest in these issues in Northern Ireland, that difficult decisions were taken, principally by the previous Government at the time of the various agreements, which involved very difficult choices—hard choices—that had to be made in order to try to build the platform for peace and reconciliation. I am very happy to look at her specific point and see whether there is anything I can do to reassure her in a letter, but I do not want to unpick decisions taken at a difficult time to try to give us the peace that we enjoy today.

The Prime Minister will know that recently it has gone into the public domain that more than 365 people in Northern Ireland were given the royal prerogative of mercy, despite 10 years of files being lost. Will he give a commitment that those names will be made public? After all, if the Queen takes the time to sign 365 names, surely the public and particularly the victims have the right to know.