|
Column Number: 117
Standing Committee E
Thursday 27 February 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]
Clause 20
Restriction on disclosure of information
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 47, in
clause 20, page 14, line 24, leave out from 'on' to end to line 25 and insert—
'(a) conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine, or both; or
(b) summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.'.—[Mr. Trimble.]
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) who was speaking in our previous sitting has been called away.
Mr. Paul Goodman (Wycombe): If I am not mistaken, I was speaking when the Committee ended under the chairmanship of Mr. Gale.
The Chairman: In that event, I apologise. I have been misinformed. I was told that Mr. Carmichael was speaking.
Mr. Goodman: I assumed that you had mispronounced my name in such a way that it had come out as Mr. Carmichael. I cannot believe for a moment that you would be capable of any error; I still refuse to believe it. It may be as well that you were not in the Chair at the end of the previous sitting, because you would have observed a distressing divergence of view between my hon. Friends the Members for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, who is usually the most emollient of men, accused my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne of drafting what he thought was a slightly inadequate—he used stronger language than that—amendment on punishment for a member of the board who was found guilty of disclosing information via a court. All that I did was to complicate the position of my own party even further by saying that, in my view—
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): Is that the third way?
Mr. Goodman: As there are only three Conservative members of the Committee, my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that there cannot be a fourth party. My hon. Friends, as well as the right hon. Member for
Column Number: 118
Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), will understand that historical reference. The point that I was making before my hon. Friend diverted me slightly was that it seems to me—as it seems to all Conservative members of the Committee and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—that a fine for disclosing this sensitive information would be completely inadequate.
I was about to confuse my hon. Friends by saying that, even if they did not want to press the matter to a Division, I did. However, I have received assurances from them that they may be of a similar mind and bowing, as I always do, to their complete wisdom in all matters, I shall allow an opportunity for the Minister to respond.
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): I shall continue to support the position of the board. I regard anyone who breaks a confidence, having been given sensitive information, as not just breaking his word to the board, his colleagues and his political party, but to society at large. I would have no sympathy with such a person or promote his case.
I have been in politics a long time and have seen the divulging of information. I have never yet seen a case brought to law in relation to a political party or an organisation in which it was not established who the person involved was. We could be 100 per cent., 90 per cent. or 50 per cent. sure, but one thing in politics and this way of life is certain. We could never find the person who did it and be certain that we could get a conviction. The discussion is worthy but while I would throw the book at someone who broke his word in such a way, we must remember that that is the reality.
Ask any Secretary of State who has served in the north of Ireland and he or she will readily confirm that it is unique when it comes to the leaking of sensitive information. There are those who might cause apprehension by their presence on the board, but other parties in the north of Ireland are so adept at leaking that one could envisage problems arising over who will get there first. I do not want to make a song and dance about it. I have no time for any of those people, or for anyone who would break that kind of confidence.
If the libertarian wing of the Tory party succeeds and upsets the five years measure, I would weep no tears. However, I know that leaking works in various directions. For years there have been leaks not just about the Government, but from the Government; not just about the police, but by the police; not just about policing boards, but by policing boards. For as long as our democratic system continues—and it should always be maintained—leaking will continue. It is good to have arguments and discussion about what the penalties might be. However, while those are worthy and worth putting forward, I am confident that that power will not be exercised, or even would be able to be exercised, to bring about the result that we are now discussing.
Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry): I agree with the hon. Member for Solihull on exactly where one would like to see the conviction leading. I doubt whether I would go as far the hon. Gentleman went—he described his views as being close to the ''hang 'em
Column Number: 119
and flog 'em'' people—but I would lean more closely towards his proposition than that of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who described himself in terms of moderation. Given the way things are going in Northern Ireland, those who describe themselves as moderates may become an endangered species. It would appear from the opinion poll in the Belfast Telegraph last week that about one third of the Unionist community shares the right hon. Gentleman's views. Of course an election will be held and we will find out, although the example of previous elections tells us that there are some who would prefer there not to be an election.
There is the issue about whether a term of imprisonment ought to be included as an option. The position in Northern Ireland is considerably different from that in most of mainland Great Britain. Information that is supplied in such circumstances in most of the UK may lead to a headline in the newspaper, or perhaps to some discomfort for a day or two. For the most part, information passed to particular groups in Northern Ireland can in certain circumstances lead to much more serious consequences. For that reason I support the inclusion of a term of imprisonment, albeit possibly one that is shorter than that recommended by the hon. Member for Solihull.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): It might be of benefit to Committee members if I drew their attention to the code of ethics for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They might find it useful when we come to discuss other clauses later today and on Tuesday. I am grateful to you, Mr. Benton, for giving me permission to place copies on the Table. If there are not enough copies, I will ensure that more are provided early next week.
This has been a useful debate. It may help if I explained why the penalty was set at this level and if I explained the other sanctions that are available under the law, which I touched upon in earlier debates and which could, in certain circumstances, apply to an improper disclosure of sensitive information by one of the groups specified in the clause.
The penalty was set at this level to mirror the provisions of section 63(3) of the 1998 Act, which makes it an offence for the police ombudsman to disclose, other than in the specific terms of that section of the Act, any information gained during the course of her work. We believe that it is appropriate for the penalty for improper disclosure to be consistent with the other penalty for disclosure.
Part of the reason why neither penalty is more severe is that the offence described here deals only with the act of disclosure. That is a serious matter; I accept the representations that I have received on that from both sides of the Committee. You have known me for many years, Mr. Benton, and I hope that you will agree that I take a liberal attitude on many aspects of political life. The longer that I spend dealing with the responsibilities of my post as security Minister in Northern Ireland, the less liberal I am inclined to be. However, with regard to this amendment, I urge my
Column Number: 120
colleagues to restrain themselves from being tempted to enter into the auction that we got involved in before we broke for lunch.
There are many other offences within the criminal law that could, in certain circumstances, apply to improper disclosure of sensitive information. As I said in an earlier debate, depending on the use to which any information gained in the context of the board's work is put, the person disclosing it could be charged, for example, with conspiracy or a specific offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, such as disclosing information likely to prejudice a terrorist investigation or collecting or communicating information likely to be of use to terrorists.
The offence set up here does not override those other offences, nor does it seek to replace them in respect of board members. The ordinary criminal law will apply to those individuals just as it would to you, Mr. Benton, or to me. The act of improper disclosure constitutes an additional offence for which they should receive an appropriate penalty.
Mr. Mallon: First, in talking about making people liable under the law for the disclosure of sensitive information, is there not more chance of bringing a case properly if there is documentation, rather than an absence of documentation? Secondly, in the type of circumstances that the Minister describes—I do not want to get into an auction either—what might be in the rules that might be agreed by the policing board in future in relation to those who may have given sensitive information? It may be that nothing is possible or that the rules are not relevant in law, but we should try, rather than pursue a method that will never bring people in front of the courts.
2.45 pm
| 
