Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill |
|
Clause 3 Certificates of eligibility Mr. Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 112, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 113, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out
Amendment No. 232, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out ‘1st November 2005’ and insert ‘10th April 2004’. Amendment No. 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert
Amendment No. 233, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, after ‘that’, insert
Amendment No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, leave out ‘does not support’ and insert
Amendment No. 49, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
Amendment No. 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, after ‘that’, insert
Amendment No. 50, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert
Amendment No. 235, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert
Amendment No. 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out
Amendment No. 9, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Amendment No. 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Column Number: 147 Amendment No. 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Amendment No. 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Amendment No. 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Amendment No. 51, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Amendment No. 54, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Amendment No. 115, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Amendment No. 169, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Amendment No. 48, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
Amendment No. 55, in clause 3, page 2, line 48, at end insert—
Amendment No. 116, in clause 3, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
Column Number: 148
New clause 20—Entitlement to certificate and licence: further provisions—
Mr. Robertson: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 112, 113, 115 and 116. Amendment No. 112 refers to the awarding of a certificate. It seeks to change “must award a certificate” to “may award a certificate”, which would give the commissioner a little flexibility as to whether to award that certificate to an applicant. The word “may” would be less prescriptive and would allow for greater discretion on the part of the commissioner than “must”, which makes the granting of a certificate binding in all circumstances if the applicant appears to qualify. Although the requirement would appear to have been met by the applicant, the commissioner should have some flexibility, especially as there is already an appeals procedure, which is detailed in clause 12. The amendment seeks to introduce that flexibility. Amendment No. 113 relates to subsection (2)(a)(i) which refers to an applicant’s qualifying for a certificate if members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland have,
to which the Bill applies, and if he
The reason for the amendment is that we were wondering why that date was chosen. What is significant about it? We do not believe in the Bill at all, but if it is to be introduced, it should have a sunset clause and I shall propose six months in a later amendment. If we are to go down this road at all it seems to us that the eligibility should run from the end date, rather than the arbitrary date of 1 November. Can the Minister explain why any date, and that date in particular, should have been chosen? Amendment No. 115 would add to the list of conditions that have to be fulfilled before the applicant can be granted a licence. In addition to those in the Bill I propose that applicants should be granted a certificate only if they would not, in the opinion of a senior member of the PSNI, be a danger to the public, would not be engaged or likely to be engaged in the indirect incitement or glorification of acts of terrorism and would not be likely to be concerned in any aspects of criminality. I shall briefly take each point in turn. It must surely be right that the applicant should not be seen by the police as a danger to the public. Indeed, clause 10 accepts that the licence should be awarded only if, in
A number of processes are running in parallel, as I said on Second Reading. The emergency provisions are due to come to an end in 2007 or, at the latest, 2008. The Assembly elections are due in 2007 and the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will probably be up and running by 2007 in the Minister’s estimation. As the Bill has the potential to return a number of people who have been a menace to the streets of Northern Ireland back to those streets at a time when the emergency provisions could have been scrapped, we risk destabilising the streets if we are not careful. I do not think that that would be the Government’s intention. Is it not important that the police do not see such people as a danger to members of the public, especially those whom they have previously terrorised? It seems a minimal provision and is consistent with the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, where the fourth condition to be satisfied before being eligible for release is that the person would not be a danger to the public. I would not propose the incitement and glorification amendment other than for the sake of consistency with the Bills recently introduced by the Government. I would have thought that they would accept the amendment with open arms. After all, one terrorist is as bad as another. It is surely wrong to prohibit members of al-Qaeda from glorifying terrorism on the mainland while allowing IRA or UVF supporters to carry out the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We all said in early stages of this Bill and the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill, which completed its passage through the Commons last week, that we want to see Northern Ireland returned to normality. Normality also means commonality in this respect, so in order to be keeping with other terrorist legislation perhaps it is important to prohibit inciting and glorifying terrorism in Northern Ireland. The third aspect of the amendment is designed to ensure that the applicant is not and does not become engaged in criminality. We have heard over many years in this House and outside that Northern Ireland has become a different place since the Belfast agreement and that paramilitary activity has been reduced, as have murders and other forms of paramilitary violence. However, from the outset I would say that far too much paramilitary violence has continued since that agreement. I would also draw the Committee’s attention to the last IMC report, which states that the UVF remains “active, violent and ruthless”, that there are unreported acts of intimidation that are far more numerous than acts of violence and that the criminals are flexible and resilient. The nature of the violence may have changed, but the mafia-style criminality remains. It is right that it cannot be allowed to continue on either side of the divide. There can be little doubt that republicans are involved in criminality, whether that is through protection rackets, bank robberies, extortion or whatever. There is certainly no doubt in my mind that
3.15 pmFinally, I shall address amendment No. 116. The Bill requires a senior police officer to write to the commissioner to state that he believes that an applicant qualifies to be dealt with under the scheme. The amendment would require the officer to consult the IMC, the Northern Ireland victims commissioner and the NIHRC before making that statement. The purpose of the amendment is, again, to keep the victim at the heart of the process, and is totally consistent with the other amendments that we have tabled. Mr. Robinson: There is a significant element of commonality between the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and those to which I speak, which are amendments Nos. 3, and 6 to 13. Amendment No. 3 would ensure that no one who has been involved in terrorism since 1998 can benefit from the scheme. According to the Government, the purpose of the scheme is to resolve and put a line under the past, which is why they are prepared to give what amounts to an amnesty for pre-1998 offences. The very fact that offences took place after that date indicates that matters are not in the past as far as the offenders are concerned—that even after the Belfast Agreement, they were still doing what they do best. Clearly, such people should not benefit from the scheme. Clean hands post-1998 is not an unreasonable standard to expect people to meet. Under the Bill, effectively, crimes post-1998 are not eligible for benefit from either the scheme or the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, so criminals post-1998 should not be eligible either. The purpose of amendment No. 6—there is some similarity between amendments Nos. 6 and 11—is to link the applicant’s ability to benefit from the scheme to the behaviour of the paramilitary organisation for which they committed the offence, rather than the applicant’s—unprovable—thoughts. Applicants will benefit from the provisions of this legislation because of the status and bargaining power of the paramilitary organisation and should therefore be accountable for the subsequent acts of the organisation. There are advantages to our proposal from the Government’s point of view. It would provide a powerful incentive for organisations not to get involved in paramilitary, criminal or terrorist activity, and it will be difficult to link an individual with a particular offence or behaviour. The scheme is being introduced because the paramilitary organisation did a deal with the Government, so its continuation should depend on it keeping its part of that deal. Without such a link, terrorists could permanently benefit from a short-term so-called peace. Column Number: 151 I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that language used in clause 6 is not replicated in clause 3. Clause 6 uses the wording
It is precisely the Government’s language there that we are attempting to insert into clause 3, as they would never be able to prove
which is the wording in clause 3. It is much easier to make an assessment of the organisation than of the individual. I urge the Government to consider that matter, and the Committee to vote accordingly. People should not be able to benefit if the organisation with which they are associated still engages in the same activities as in the past. Why on earth would we want to allow people to apply for and get a certificate if the organisation of which they have been a part, and on whose behalf they have committed acts of terrorism, is still out there and carrying out that kind of activity? Under clause 3, they can do that. If the Government had used the same language as in clause 6, they could not; the activities of the organisation would have applied against the person. If the Bill is an attempt to draw a line under the past, any activity that is demonstrably not in the past should be taken into account. I remind the Minister that the Government made this mistake in 1998; I trust that they will not make the same mistake again on this occasion. The purpose of amendment No. 7 is to make the condition that it addresses a police judgment, rather than a judgment of the Government or a Government appointee. No person or organisation would be better placed than the police to determine that an applicant
It adds to the Bill a recognition that the best body to make that judgment is the PSNI, rather than the Government or a Government appointee. I trust that that is such common sense that even the Government might be able to take it on board. With amendment No. 9, we begin to list a number of conditions that the commissioner must meet in respect of issuing a certificate. The only previous requirements that are laid down in the legislation could, in effect, be met by anybody, no matter what the circumstances prevailing were. Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 make a number of further requirements. Amendment No. 9 would ensure that people who are a danger to the public do not benefit from the scheme. Elsewhere in the Bill, the Government have that as a requirement. It seems to me to be such a natural factor in the current context that I am surprised that the Government might be considering that somebody who is a danger to the public should benefit from the scheme. I would have thought that the Government would not have to stretch too far to accept the principle of the amendment. It would be an extraordinary position for the Government to adopt if they recognised that somebody was a danger to the public but they also ensured that they did not spend a
Amendment No. 10 is important, and I am sure that the Committee will want to study it in some detail. It is the exiles amendment. It would make sure that there is a linkage between any organisation benefiting from this scheme and how it treats those whom it has, through fear, exiled and whom it does not allow to return to Northern Ireland. Why should people who have committed the most heinous crimes be allowed by the Government to return to Northern Ireland, when the organisation of which they are a part will not allow those who have stood in their way to return to Northern Ireland? It is unacceptable for such applicants to benefit from the scheme in such circumstances when people still do not feel able to return home. A real test of the true nature of the state of normality or peace is whether those who have been exiled are allowed to return home, and feel that they can do so. The purpose of our amendment is to link clearly the attitude of organisations to exiles and the extent to which their members who have committed offences can benefit from the provisions of the Bill. Without this change there can be no justification for allowing terrorists to return home when their victims cannot. It would be absurd to allow those who have fled a proper and legal judicial system to return home free of the normal legal system, when those who have been exiled as a result of a paramilitary style of justice are not safe to return. Amendment No. 12 deals with torture and breaches of the European convention on human rights. I touched on that matter on Second Reading. I return to it because it is vital that the Government address it. If they do not do so in this Committee, on Report or in another House, it will be addressed in the courts. They can be certain about that. This is a responsibility that the Government cannot dodge. They are bound by conventions. They have signed up to conventions, for instance the United Nations convention against torture, article 4 of which states:
The United Kingdom is one such state party. So it is not just a case of having brought somebody before a quasi-judicial panel; it is a requirement to have the offences punished and for there to be penalties as a result of such a court case. The Government have signed up to that convention and the European convention on human rights, article 3 of which, on the prohibition of torture, states:
Article 13 makes it clear that:
It is clear from both conventions that the Government have signed up to a requirement not only not to be involved in torture themselves, but to punish
The purpose of amendment No. 13 is to introduce a role for the IMC. By and large, in the past, the Government have examined their legislative responsibility. However, when it comes to whether an organisation is still involved in terrorist activity, the Secretary of State says publicly, “Well, I have to make a judgment in the round”—in some cases even going before the courts to do so. I think that we can remember the case fairly well where the Minister, even though there had been acts of terrorism, was prepared to say, “In the round, I have to accept that the ceasefire still holds”. The reality is that the Government take their decisions for political reasons. They set up, and gave their support to, the IMC. They gave it an important role: to assess and to monitor the activities of paramilitary organisations. As a result of IMC reports the Government have imposed sanctions on various paramilitary organisations. Even within the political process, the Government place great emphasis on its reports. How many times have we heard during the past few weeks the importance of the IMC report next January? The Government are inclined to believe that a good IMC report would indicate that peace and normality exist in Northern Ireland and that that should be the test. The Government set the test of whether there is normality by the judgment of the IMC. What we are saying, under the amendment, is so be it. We would rather have the IMC’s judgment on such matters than the Government’s; the IMC would certainly be much more independent. 3.30 pmAs the provisions are exceptional, it would not be unreasonable to disqualify applicants on the basis that the organisation with which they were associated was continuing to engage in illegal activity. In my view, the ideal body to make such a judgment would be the IMC. The Minister may well respond that thus far the IMC’s role has been confined to making recommendations, and that what we are suggesting is to give it a decision-making role. That is no bad thing; it would probably make better decisions than the Government, as far as such matters are concerned. Certainly, if the Government had taken the IMC’s recommendations, we might be in a better position today. It has made recommendations that the Government have not been prepared to carry through; indeed, the Government have acted in defiance of the IMC’s recommendations. Column Number: 154 Our amendment would give paramilitary organisations an additional incentive to ensure that their illegal activity did not continue. That is surely something that the Government want. If such a provision had been included in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the political process to date might have been very different. We are talking about the opportunity to ensure that paramilitarism is over, by making sure that a paramilitary organisation cannot cosy up to the Government and make another wee deal on the side with them to get by in spite of its behaviour. It would be foolish to ignore such an opportunity. In fairness to the Government, it took them two or three weeks to get over the Northern bank robbery of £26.5 million and the McCartney killing, but the fact that they got over those events in a few weeks shows just how little those kind of terrorist events affect the Government’s thinking, because they are considering other issues. I would far rather a body such as the IMC took such decisions, and I would rather the commissioner relied on them, than on politically motivated Ministers. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 9 December 2005 |