Column Number: 1
Standing Committee B
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
†Sir Nicholas Winterton, David Taylor
†Anderson, Mr. David (Blaydon) (Lab)
†Banks, Gordon (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
†Bellingham, Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk) (Con)
†Brown, Mr. Russell (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
†Burt, Lorely (Solihull) (LD)
†Coaker, Mr. Vernon (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)
†Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)
†Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
†Durkan, Mark (Foyle) (SDLP)
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias (Bournemouth, East) (Con)
†Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester) (Lab)
†Hanson, Mr. David (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office)
†Harris, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, South) (Lab)
†Hendrick, Mr. Mark (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
†Hermon, Lady (North Down) (UUP)
†Hillier, Meg (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
†Hunt, Mr. Jeremy (South-West Surrey) (Con)
†Irranca-Davies, Huw (Ogmore) (Lab)
†McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
†McDonnell, Dr. Alasdair (Belfast, South) (SDLP)
†Moon, Mrs. Madeleine (Bridgend) (Lab)
†Öpik, Lembit (Montgomeryshire) (LD)
†Robertson, Mr. Laurence (Tewkesbury) (Con)
†Robinson, Mr. Peter (Belfast, East) (DUP)
†Slaughter, Mr. Andrew (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush) (Lab)
†Todd, Mr. Mark (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
†Wallace, Mr. Ben (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con)
†Waltho, Lynda (Stourbridge) (Lab)
†Wilson, Sammy (East Antrim) (DUP)
Alan Sandall, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 3
Tuesday 6 December 2005
(Morning)
[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]
10.30 am
The Chairman: I welcome all Members to the first sitting of the Committee on what is clearly an important, sensitive and, I can say from the Chair, controversial Bill.
I do not take kindly to mobile phones going off during our deliberations, so I ask that they be switched off or set to vibrate. If their phone vibrates, hon. Members can go and deal with the matter if they so wish, but I do not want our deliberations to be disturbed.
If the Committee wished to extend an afternoon sitting into the evening, it would be my intention if I were in the Chair at the time to break for a dinner or supper period. We could then return if it was clear that there was a wish to continue the debate.
The Programming Sub-Committee met just before this first sitting of the Committee commenced. It was an agreeable meeting. The Minister showed flexibility when describing the position that he would take on behalf of the Government. That is a satisfactory way in which to begin. Copies of the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee are available in the Room.
My co-Chairman is Mr. David Taylor. He will chair a number of sittings.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. David Hanson): I beg to move,
(1) during proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 6th December, the Standing Committee shall meet—
(a) at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 6th December;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th December;
(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 13th December;
(d) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 15th December;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 to 8; Schedule 2; Clauses 9 to 13; Schedule 3; Clauses 14 and 15; Schedule 4; Clauses 16 and 17; Schedule 5; Clause 18; Schedule 6; Clauses 19 to 27; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 15th December.
Sir Nicholas, on behalf of the Committee I welcome you to the Chair, as I will your co-Chairman, Mr. Taylor. I know that you will both serve the Committee well. I welcome the comments that you made at the start of our proceedings. I also welcome all members of the Committee. The Bill deals with extremely difficult and controversial matters and I hope that the Committee can discuss it in a civilised way—I am sure that, under your chairmanship, we will do so.
Column Number: 4
The programme motion has been agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee. I say to those who were not members of that Committee that, as ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and his colleagues have, with the usual channels, done a superlative job of assuring Opposition Members that there will be ample opportunity for the Committee to consider the Bill.
The motion allows morning and afternoon sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I am content for sittings to continue into the evening if hon. Members feel that there is not sufficient time to deal with the matters. I am relatively flexible, if hon. Members wish to do that. I am in the hands of the Opposition in respect of the Bill’s progress. The Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling have deliberately not put knives in the programme; we are content to progress at the speed at which the Opposition wish to take the Bill and the amendments. Again, I am flexible to the extent that our completion date according to the programme order already agreed by the House of Commons’ is 4 pm on 15 December. Within that time frame, I am content to accept the pace at which at which members of the Committee wish to progress.
With those remarks, I commend the programme motion to the Committee. I wish you well in the Chair, Sir Nicholas, as I do members of the Committee in our deliberations during the next two weeks.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. I have had the privilege of serving under your chairmanship before. It was an agreeable experience and I am sure that today will be similar.
I thank the Minister for his accommodating approach. He understands that this is a difficult Bill and he is being as flexible as possible within the constraints placed on us by the House of Commons. As I have said privately to him, we are about to discuss an emotional and difficult subject, and any comments that I make will be about the Bill itself and are not intended to be personal remarks about him or anyone else.
It is good to see that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) is serving on the Committee. He has shown remarkable courage and dedication to duty in the past couple of weeks. I pay tribute to him. I know that he will contribute greatly to the debate. I also welcome my party colleagues to the Committee. Debating the Bill will be a harrowing experience, but an experience none the less. I also thank the Clerk, Mr. Sandell, for his help in respect of tabling amendments.
We are generally opposed in principle to the concept of programming and we frequently vote against programme motions in the House, but in this instance the motion has already been agreed and we feel that there will be adequate time to consider the Bill in its entirety. Given that and the Minister’s flexible approach, I have no objection to the programme motion.
Column Number: 5
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I also welcome you to the Chair of our Committee, Sir Nicholas, on an exciting day for your party. May I be so bold as to say that perhaps you will prove once again that you are the finest leader that the Conservatives have never had? Of course, there may be time for that to happen in future.
I also thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for his comments. As hon. Members know my brother passed away two weeks ago, and we buried him on Friday. The past few weeks have been very emotional. I know that I am not unique in experiencing such a tragedy; other hon. Members have suffered similar tragic experiences in their families. Nevertheless, I am extremely grateful to hon. Members, particularly Northern Ireland politicians, for their generosity of spirit. I hope that I can live up to the professional expectations of this Committee, notwithstanding my loss.
On the programme motion, let me say that the hon. Member for Gedling in his capacity as Whip has proved once again that we are well served by him in the context of organising Northern Ireland business. I would go so far as to say that in my eight and a half years’ experience in Northern Ireland matters, the programming of business has never been so effectively handled. That is because when he is drawing up programming proposals, he listens, negotiates and makes sure that all views from all parts of the House are taken into account. I thank him for that; it takes away one of the sources of friction that used to detain us.
Having praised the hon. Gentleman’s political agility—he is like a nimble gazelle, seeking accord—I turn briefly to put a question to the Minister about the programming. I have to ask him why we are here at all this morning. We are all aware that the legislation is a result of a promise made by the Government to Sinn Fein at Weston Park in 2001. [Interruption.] Indeed, that might be Gerry Adams on the phone right now, passing instructions to Government Members. However, there were reports over the weekend that even Sinn Fein is now criticising the Bill. If the one party that wanted the legislation is now saying that it does not like it, I ask this question of the Minister: would it not be better for everyone if he simply withdrew the Bill and thereby saved us a great deal of time?
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): Sir Nicholas, I join others in welcoming you to the Chair. I am delighted that we have someone of your experience and skill in the Chair for what will be a difficult Bill.
I note that the Minister has shown some flexibility in terms of the programming. I and others hope that that is not the end of his flexibility; I hope that he shows it throughout our proceedings. It would be more than a shame if the Bill were to return to the House in its present shape. I do not believe that the Minister can make concessions in respect of any the amendments that will make the Bill acceptable, but doing so might make it less unacceptable, so I hope that he will seriously consider the amendments. If he does not listen here, the Government will have to listen elsewhere.
Column Number: 6
On the potential for the Committee to sit outside the normal hours, my colleagues and I are willing to have a few all-night sittings. I am sure that the Government Whip would be pleased to facilitate that to ensure that everybody gets the opportunity to speak to the amendments that they have tabled.
I am somewhat concerned that many very important amendments have been stuck in the middle of groupings. If the Minister does not accept those amendments, we feel that it would be important to press them to a Division. I hope that the fact that they are stuffed in the middle will not make their being called less likely—it is clear that the people who grouped them do not have the same recognition of how that would be taken back in Northern Ireland. It would be a shame if key issues were not put to the Committee for a decision.
My colleagues and I look forward to the sittings ahead, but to us the Bill is profane and unacceptable in every aspect. The Minister carries some shame into the Committee, having conceded to the Provisional IRA, by way of a shabby deal, the concept embodied in this legislation, which goes far beyond any other concession that the Government have made to the Provisional IRA.
The Chairman: Before I call the next speaker, I must say in response to the hon. Gentleman’s comments that it is within the Chair’s discretion to allow a Division on amendments that are not lead amendments. If he wishes to have a Division on any amendment other than the lead one in a group and advises the Chair of that, I would be happy to consider it.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): I join others in welcoming you to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. You have already welcomed all Members to this Committee. In terms of the business before us, I do not believe that many of us feel welcome. It is about the most awful bit of legislation—certainly legislation to do with Ireland—that this House has ever had before it. I welcome your clarification on dealing with amendments, because some amendments would otherwise be buried in the groupings in which they find themselves. It is clear that a range of amendments have already been tabled—there are probably more to come—that will test the Bill, hopefully to its moral and logical destruction. The Bill is immoral and illogical and it should be tested to its destruction. It is the product of a fairly seedy compact. People told us that it came from the Good Friday agreement, but it clearly does not; the Government abandoned that pretence on Second Reading and that fact will be further exposed as this Committee deliberates.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on the programme and the fact that the Government are at least relaxed and flexible about it. Along with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for Gedling in that regard. It is unusual for the Minister and the Government Whip to hear me express satisfaction about anything that they have done in recent days or express any sense of reassurance about anything that they are offering, but this is one area in which I can do so. Those might be the last kind words that we have to say about them during our consideration.
Column Number: 7
10.45 am
Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): Sir Nicholas, I, too, am delighted to sit under your chairmanship and that of Mr. David Taylor, whom you kindly indicated will be sharing the burden with you during this and other sittings—and there will be a burden.
There was general recognition among those who took part in Second Reading—not, unfortunately, including many Members of the Government party—that we are discussing an obnoxious piece of legislation. Although the Minister has in his usual, gentlemanly way indicated that there may be flexibility in discussing the amendments, it is a fact that this obnoxious piece of legislation will never make it through the House of Lords, because the Government have no majority there. It is also a fact that amendments will have to be accepted to change the Bill radically before there will be any acceptance in another place. Personally, I will not vote at all for this Bill, whether it is amended heavily or otherwise.
I am amazed that, on the first day of consideration, roughly 250 amendments have been tabled to a Bill that has only 27 clauses and five schedules. Although I have been in Parliament only a short time—since 2001—I have been a member of many Committees dealing with Northern Ireland legislation, particularly Orders in Council, but mainstream, primary legislation as well. However, I have never faced so many amendments.
I want all aspects of the Bill to be examined and scrutinised line by line, and if that means that the Committee comes back and sits long into the evening, I certainly intend to be here.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chairman: There are one or two domestic matters to deal with. I remind all Committee members that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill and copies are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice of amendments should—in fact, I am going to say must—be given. As a general rule, my fellow Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting. I hope that all Committee members will note that remark; it is important.
Clause 1
Offences to which the Act applies
Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out
‘(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Certificates for offences committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland—
‘(1) Where an application is made to the certification commissioner for a certificate of eligibility, the commissioner must issue a certificate if—
(a) the applicant is accused of an offence committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland, and
Column Number: 8
(b) it appears to the commissioner, on the information available to him, that the applicant meets the conditions set out in section 3 above.
(2) The commissioner may preserve the anonymity of any person who makes an application under this section, if he sees fit.’.
Mr. Robertson: The amendment deals with identifying the offences to which the Bill applies. The Terrorism Act 2000 gives quite a wide definition of terrorism. Under that Act, terrorism is action that
“involves serious violence against a person . . . involves serious damage to property . . . endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action . . . creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or . . . is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.”
According to the Bill,
“An offence is one to which this Act applies if it is . . . an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom committed before 10th April 1998 in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”,
but then it adds
“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.
That seems to be a slightly strange phrase. The original definition of terrorism is wide, but that phrase makes it even wider and seems to create the potential to include most crimes if they are committed in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland, even though they may not be committed for terrorist purposes. That is far too wide. All manner of offences could be included, provided that they were committed in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland. I am sure it is not the intention of the Government for this Bill to cover all offences. That would mean, if taken to its logical conclusion, that every single offender would have the potential to escape punishment, regardless of what they did.
Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, South) (Lab): On a point of order, Sir Nicholas, could you arrange for further copies of the Bill to be made available to members of the Committee? I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting his flow, but it is unusual for us to run out at this stage.
The Chairman: Of course I shall. That there are further copies behind me and we shall ensure that they are put on the Table so that any hon. Member can acquire one. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order.
Mr. Robertson: I suggest the Bill is so shameful that they did not want to print too many copies of it.
As I was saying, I am sure it is not the Minister’s intention that every single offender could escape punishment regardless of what they did. I should be grateful if the Minister told the Committee the precise purpose of including the phrase,
“(whether committed for purposes of terrorism or not)”,
in the Bill.
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): I rise to speak to new clause 2, but first I add my voice to the welcome given to you, Sir Nicholas, as the Chairman of this Committee. We are dealing with
Column Number: 9
difficult legislation and with your long-standing personal interest in Northern Ireland, you will bring something extra to the conduct of our affairs.
New clause 2 deals with members of the security forces. Let me be clear from the outset; the Democratic Unionist Party is opposed in principle to the legislation. We believe that if someone is guilty of a terrorist-related offence or of a scheduled offence, including murder, they should go through the full judicial process. The legislation represents an undermining of the judicial system in Northern Ireland. I can do no better than echo the words of the Superintendents Association, which has condemned the Bill and stated their belief that it will undermine public confidence in the administration of the judicial system in Northern Ireland. Coming from senior police officers, that is pretty strong. I hope that the Government take heed of that comment.
Nevertheless, we believe that if the Government intend to make special arrangements for members of paramilitary/terrorist organisations and to grant them, in effect, to an amnesty for the crimes that they have committed, members of the security forces should have some provision made for them. It would be absolutely absurd to have a situation where members of paramilitary/terrorist organisations were benefiting from this legislation while members of the security forces were being subjected to the full rigour of the law. That situation would be untenable.
Lady Hermon: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to persuade the Committee that there is a moral equivalence between terrorist paramilitaries, who may benefit from this legislation, and members of the security forces?
Mr. Donaldson: I hope that the hon. Lady knows me well enough to know that I would never seek to make a moral equivalence between members of the security forces and members of terrorist organisations. She will be aware that members of my family have served with the security forces and that some of them have died in the line of duty with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and with the Ulster Defence Regiment. In no way would I seek to draw the parallel that she suggested. If she reads the new clause she will see that, far from seeking to draw a moral equivalence, we are attempting to draw a clear distinction between members of the security forces and members of paramilitary terrorist organisations in the Bill’s treatment of them.
I wish that we were not even in this Committee—I wish that the legislation had not been proposed and that we were not debating in this context. The Government propose that members of the security forces should be drawn into the legislation, but I shall not support some of the most notorious terrorist killers being able to benefit from the provision while members of the Army or the police are subjected to an entirely different process, whereby they have to go through the full process of the law. I wish that everyone had to do so. I wish that the judicial process was not being undermined.
Column Number: 10
I will not stand idly by, not speaking up for members of the security forces and not protecting them in some way. New clause 2 is designed to give them protection by creating a clear distinction between the way in which terrorists are dealt with by the certification commissioner and the tribunal and the way in which members of the security forces are treated. The new clause proposes that the commissioner be required to issue a certificate if
“the applicant is accused of an offence committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland”.
That is clearly directed towards members of the security forces. For example, it is possible that the paratroopers who were on duty on the day that has now become known as Bloody Sunday might in future be charged with offences relating to the shooting of a number of individuals on that day. I do not want those soldiers to be put in the same category as members of the Provisional IRA. That is why we seek to draw a distinction. We are saying that if people apply for a certificate, if they have been accused of an offence committed during the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland, and if they meet the conditions set out in clause 3(3), the commissioner must issue a certificate.
We also argue that, because of the sensitivities of their position, members of the security forces should be able to apply for anonymity, and that if they do so the commissioner may preserve their anonymity if he sees fit. Again, our purpose is to draw a distinction between members of the security forces and members of a paramilitary terrorist organisation, because we do not believe that they should benefit from provisions on anonymity. They should be made to come forward and be subjected to a full cross-examination and so on, in a public way, under this Bill.
Lady Hermon: The hon. Gentleman has referred to clause 3(3), but will he direct his attention to subsection (2) of that clause? It is a fact that in order to qualify, an applicant
“would have been arrested for the offence before that date but for the fact that he was believed to be outside the United Kingdom”.
Will he estimate how many members of the security forces who now live outside the United Kingdom would benefit from the provisions, even if his new clause was accepted?
11 am
|
