Column Number: 81
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: 83
Thursday 8 December 2005
(Morning)
[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]
9 am
The Chairman: I welcome all Members, on this dull and depressing day, to the third sitting of the Committee. I believe that it is sensible of me, as it will be of my co-Chairman, to remind the Committee that, although there are no knives, scrutiny of the Bill must be completed by 4 o’clock on Thursday 15 December. We had a high-quality debate on Tuesday and I am sure that that will continue. I call the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) to move the amendment.
Clause 2
Certification commissioner
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): I beg to move amendment No. 178, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
‘(1) There are to be no less than three certification commissioners.’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 179, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
‘(1A) In making appointments the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the certification commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.’.
No. 198, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 222, in schedule 1, page 15, line 5, leave out ‘The’ and insert ‘A’.
No. 223, in schedule 1, page 15, line 19, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.
No. 224, in schedule 1, page 15, line 21, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.
No. 225, in schedule 1, page 15, line 26, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.
No. 226, in schedule 1, page 16, line 3, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.
No. 227, in schedule 1, page 16, line 4, leave out ‘Commissioner’s’ and insert ‘Commissioners’’.
No. 199, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 200, in clause 3, page 2, line 3, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 201, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 202, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out ‘him’ and insert ‘them’.
No. 203, in clause 3, page 2, line 7, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
Column Number: 84
No. 204, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 205, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 206, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 207, in clause 4, page 3, line 26, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 208, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 209, in clause 4, page 3, line 30, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 210, in clause 4, page 3, line 31, leave out ‘he’ and insert ‘they’.
No. 211, in clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 212, in clause 4, page 3, line 42, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 213, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 214, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, leave out ‘his’ and insert ‘their’.
No. 215, in clause 4, page 4, line 14, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 216, in clause 4, page 4, line 16, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 217, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 218, in clause 5, page 4, line 33, leave out ‘commissioner certifies’ and insert ‘commissioners certify’.
No. 219, in clause 15, page 8, line 20, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 220, in clause 15, page 8, line 28, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
No. 221, in clause 20, page 10, line 41, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.
Mark Durkan: I am not sure that I like the idea of “dull and depressing” being my cue, Sir Nicholas. [Laughter.]
On Tuesday, many members of the Committee reflected on the obnoxious nature of the Bill and on how to test it to see whether we could mitigate some of its effects. It is in that spirit that I propose my amendments today, although I accept that as mitigation they would be merely dimples on a face of monstrosity. They recognise first and foremost that such is the feeling in Northern Ireland that the idea of having only one certification commissioner strains people’s confidence, particularly that of victims. When at other times in the process the two Governments have adopted new measures, supposedly to take the process forward and to deal with outstanding and remaining difficulties, they have recognised that the dimensions of the problem are not confined only to Northern Ireland and victims of the crimes committed during the troubles. People in the south have been affected, as, indeed, have people in Britain and beyond.
Column Number: 85
Our amendments would ensure that there were at least three certification commissioners. They provide for the possibility of creating an international dimension of credibility and support for the whole exercise. Before when the two Governments have tried to take things forward, they have often relied on creating bodies that could carry an international capacity and recruit personalities not only in Northern Ireland, but beyond the shores of these islands. That happened with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the Independent Monitoring Commission, and it could well happen with the appeals commissioners dealt with under later clauses of the Bill. The Bill provides not only that there can be appeals commissioners—plural—but that, when appointing them the Secretary of State should ensure that they command the widest possible confidence throughout Northern Ireland.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): Sir Nicholas, it is delightful to be in Committee under your chairmanship. No matter how dark it is outside, you brighten the Room—as does the hon. Member for Foyle. There is never a dull moment when he is present.
The hon. Gentleman began his introduction to the amendments by pointing out the obnoxious nature of the Bill. We cannot get away from that fact. Given that it is so obnoxious to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, how can he believe that the Secretary of State could find just one commissioner—let alone three—who commands enough widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland to give get-out-of-jail-free cards to anyone?
Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Lady’s point. It might well be that the Government should support our amendment because they might not find a person who would take the job that they will be asking someone to do. The argument cuts both ways. People might be reluctant to take on the role, given that every victims’ group known to us has described the Bill as offensive. In proposing the amendment, we acknowledge that it will be hard to find people who might accept the job and it will certainly be hard to find any one person in Northern Ireland who could command widespread acceptance in the north. The fact is that, unlike the provision for the appeals commissioners, clause 2 does not require the Secretary of State to appoint someone who would command widespread acceptance in the north to the post of certification commissioner.
Our amendments would provide for a number of certification commissioners. That would allow for a suitable international dimension and for the appointment of people from throughout these islands as well. Our proposal is entirely consistent with the provision that the Government have made elsewhere in the Bill in respect of the appeals commissioners. We ask only that the Government are consistent with their own standards and principles and we offer amendments Nos. 178 and 179 in that spirit. The other amendments are all simply consequential, pluralizing all the references to the certification commissioner or the commissioner elsewhere in the Bill.
Column Number: 86
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he envisages the commissioners working together as a unit or independently as three arbiters? That matter came up when my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) raised the question of having three judges as a Diplock court. It would be helpful to have clarification on that.
Mark Durkan: Yes, we envisage the members acting corporately as a combined panel, as has been the case with other bodies. We do not envisage them acting independently. It will not be a case of “pick your certification commissioner”—we do not think that the amendments suggest that there would be a range of certification commissioners that people could choose from. They would be a corporate body.
Lembit Öpik: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman clarify how he envisages the commissioners making a decision? Although I hate to throw the same question at him as was thrown at my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, does he envisage them acting on the basis of a majority vote or a unanimous judgment? It would be legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to say that he would leave such matters to the creation of standing orders at the time, but it would be useful to have an idea whether he has a view on the matter.
Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We would need to discuss and explore that matter further. We did not get into it specifically in the amendment, because we can see arguments for and against. Those arguments could also arise in relation to the appeals commissioners. It might be that where a unanimous decision cannot be taken, a matter will have to be automatically referred to the appeals commissioners. There are a number of ways of dealing with the issue. We are trying to establish the principle that just as there are appeals commissioners—plural—sitting collectively, so should there be certification commissioners.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. David Hanson): Good morning, Sir Nicholas. Welcome to the third sitting of the Committee.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Foyle for raising this question, because it gives us an opportunity in Committee to establish clearly the role of the certification commissioner and whether it can be satisfied by one person or whether, as the amendment proposes, several people should undertake that role.
I say immediately to my hon. Friend that it is not necessary to have more than one certification commissioner. I will try to explain the Government’s thinking. The commissioner’s task is sensitive and it may be difficult at times, for the reasons of which we are all aware. It goes without saying that the Bill is difficult and causes great difficulties, and I know hon. Members’ objections to the principle of the Bill. However, if it is accepted in principle that the certification commissioner should exist, I believe that the task can most effectively be undertaken by one individual.
Column Number: 87
If the Bill is passed, the commissioner will be working to an objective test of whether an individual is able to qualify for admission to the scheme. The role of the certification commissioner is to take a relatively straightforward decision on whether a person is eligible using the list of conditions that will, if later clauses are agreed to, be laid down by Parliament for that purpose. The appeals commissioners, to which my hon. Friend referred, have a quasi-judicial role and replicate the role of the sentence review commissioners, who make a different type of decision. The objectivity of the certification commissioner’s role will be clear; he or she will be making that test based on the eligibility criteria.
Lady Hermon: Will the Minister outline what qualifications the certification commissioner will have to display and what criteria will be used by the Government when making that appointment? Will he underline the fact that they are looking for merits? I hope to goodness that they will be.
Mr. Hanson: Schedule 1, which we will discuss later, allows for discretion in making the appointment.
Lady Hermon: That is precisely why I am intervening now, because although the special tribunal and those who sit on it must have qualifications such as having enjoyed high judicial office in Northern Ireland or in England and Wales, there is nothing in schedule 1 about the qualifications, merits or anything else that the certification commissioner must have. Before we agree to the clause—although I will be voting against it—it would be pleasant if the Minister indicated what the Government are looking for in that appointment.
Mr. Hanson: In broad quality terms, we are looking for a certification commissioner who is sensitive to and understands the political and judicial system in Northern Ireland, who can work equally with the judiciary, the special prosecutor and victims, and who understands the difficult circumstances that have brought the Bill about. He or she will need to be familiar with the criminal justice system and to have a background in handling sensitive information. Without specifying the particular skills and attributes that that individual will need, it is clear that the post will be a senior appointment with considerable gravitas. Reverting back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, there will be sufficient consultation with stakeholders in Northern Ireland to ensure that the appointment can be made in a sympathetic way and with the support of the wider community, as I hope we have done in other cases.
Mark Durkan: Will the Minister explain who he thinks are the stakeholders to be consulted? Does that mean the parties—getting the usual sound-around that does not add up to very much? Does it mean the victims? Does it mean those who might be applying for certificates? We have a Hain-Adams Bill, providing for
Column Number: 88
a Hain-Adams exercise in terms of a certification commissioner. Will it not really just be a Hain-Adams appointment?
9.15 am
Mr. Hanson: The appointment will be made under normal independent appointments commission criteria, but as ever in Northern Ireland there is often the opportunity for the Secretary of State to discuss the potential for particular candidates with interested stakeholders in the political parties, and others. Ultimately, the appointment will be made under the appointments commission criteria. When making the appointment, the Secretary of State and the commission will need to ensure that there is understanding and community consensus regarding the individual appointed, because of the sensitivities involved and the controversial nature of the legislation.
Mark Durkan: I do not know how the Minister expects that to mean anything to any of us, and certainly to those of us from Northern Ireland, although it might mean something to Labour Members. The Government are insensitively bulldozing through a Bill that is objectionable and obnoxious to victims and to all the political parties in Northern Ireland—even Sinn Fein is now saying that it finds large parts of the Bill unacceptable. How will the consultation and sensitivity that the Minister seeks on this appointment compare with the consultation and sensitivity that we have had from the Government on the Bill?
Mr. Hanson: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has taken that stance. It is clear to me, the Secretary of State and the Government that, should the Bill pass through both Houses of Parliament, the individual who is finally appointed as certification commissioner will have to be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. We will have to deal with the issue of acceptability in due course and we will have to be sensitive, given the nature of the Bill and the difficulties that it involves, and the opposition that there will still be to it. If the Bill reaches the statute book in its present or an amended form when the parliamentary processes have been completed, that sensitivity will be needed to ensure that the wider community has confidence that the certification commissioner will do his or her job in a sensitive and objective way, clearly guided by the conditions set out in the Bill. That will ensure that the commissioner applies the tests set out in later clauses definitively and in a way that is free from outside influence. Ultimately, the test for the commissioner is what the Bill finally says and the way in which the tests in later clauses are applied.
Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): Following on from the question from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the commissioner will be pivotal in ensuring that the Bill works, but there are huge concerns about the recruitment criteria. Has the Minister undertaken any soundings about the people he is likely to recruit to see
Column Number: 89
whether anybody would be interested in the job? I suspect that few will come forward. Is there an interest in taking the job up?
Mr. Hanson: We cannot begin looking at the potential today, because the Bill has not yet finished its parliamentary passage. Even if we take the proposal through the House and the other place in the next few weeks and months, the earliest that the scheme will be able to operate will be early to mid-2007. Even if the Bill receives Royal Assent in this Session—between now and October or November next year—there will be time to appoint the certification commissioner and the special tribunal and a range of measures. Even if I said to somebody today, “We want you to be certification commissioner,” we would not be in a position to put that person into post until early to mid-2007. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is therefore that we have not yet undertaken any soundings for individuals. I believe in the primacy of Parliament and we must get the Bill through both Houses. Furthermore, the Bill will not come into effect until early to mid-2007.
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): All the stages that the Minister has outlined are procedural. To what extent does he require the IRA’s behaviour to be a factor in the commencement of the Bill?
Mr. Hanson: Even if passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Bill will not come in until 2007. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, another IMC report, which will examine progress on decommissioning, is due in the next 12 months and there will be other opportunities to monitor progress. If there were a failure in the political process, the Secretary of State could review the scheme in due course. However, I anticipate that the political process that commenced with the IRA statement in July this year and with the IMC report in October—and, potentially, its report in January or February next year—will continue to give momentum to the process. I hope that circumstances do not deteriorate, but, as with any political decision, if they do the Government can review any matter to do with this issue. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is the case, because in the past 12 months the Government have reviewed progress relating to the Northern bank robbery and other incidents that occurred in Northern Ireland last year. There are a range of issues, but I anticipate that if the legislation receives Royal Assent—I believe that it will—it will not be implemented until 2007, so questions to do with having an individual person in the certification commissioner’s post will not be considered until a later date.
I am straying slightly from the amendment. I simply say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle that, in my view, having three individuals in this role would not be a satisfactory way of ensuring the objectivity of the test. There should be one certification commissioner. I do not believe that it would be helpful to have a panel of three or more individuals judging the criteria, nor do I believe that having three individuals sharing the load would be satisfactory. We need to
Column Number: 90
have accountability; there should be one individual in the post who is accountable to the Secretary of State through the Bill.
Lembit Öpik: I do not want to prolong the debate, because I know that the Minister has nearly finished his speech. He is using arguments that the Government could have used to oppose Lord Carlile’s recommendation of three judges in Diplock courts. It is inconsistent to use such arguments in the current context and not to apply them in the case of those courts. Why is it that the Government’s only real argument against having three judges in courts is cost and complexity and we now have these different arguments to oppose the proposal of the hon. Member for Foyle?
Mr. Hanson: We are straying quite far from the amendment, but I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The role of the certification commissioner is set down clearly in the legislation. The objectivity of the criteria for the certification commissioner’s assessment of individuals who might enter the scheme will be set down clearly in later clauses—subject to amendment and discussion in Committee. I believe that that will be an objective role. We do not yet know how many cases might come before the certification commissioner, but we can anticipate the approximate work load. One individual will be sufficient to manage that work load. To have one commissioner would lead to clarity of objectives and clear criteria. It would be far preferable to have one individual, rather than three.
Lady Hermon: In fairness to the legitimate points raised by the hon. Member for Foyle, the Minister said that before any appointment—if there is to be an appointment—is made to this ghastly office of certification commissioner, the Secretary of State will consult with stakeholders. Having mentioned that word, the Minister is obliged, I think, to identify who those stakeholders will be, and specifically to confirm to the Committee that the stakeholders will be the Northern Ireland victims’ commissioner, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Chief Constable.
Mr. Hanson: Those matters are subject to discussion and later amendments. I am trying to make it clear that the individual who is appointed has to be acceptable. The Secretary of State will make the appointment, and that individual has to be acceptable to the wider community in Northern Ireland. As ever, there will be informal discussions with a range of individuals. I do not want to specify today who they will be, but, as has happened in respect of other appointments, there will be discussions and understandings reached with individuals to make sure that the person is acceptable to the wider community. The certification commissioner needs to command the confidence of all the people involved in that difficult process. I am confident that when the time comes to make the appointment, the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that sufficient discussions are undertaken when
Column Number: 91
the commission has examined the matter to ensure that the individual who emerges from the process is acceptable to the community at large.
|
