Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill |
|
Lorely Burt: I want to add our party’s support for the amendments. Indeed, they are similar to our amendment No. 48, in that they would include a reference to proscribed organisations, rather than specified ones. The amendments throw the net wider than organisations that are not on ceasefire, so as to include all terrorist organisations. We all need much more reassurance that a person availing themselves of the scheme cannot support any kind of terrorist organisation. The criteria under which an organisation can be specified are not good enough; we have been telling the Government that for some time. The Government should take into account whether an organisation is complying fully with the terms of paragraph 13. Mr. Hanson: I shall try to complete this response before 1 o’clock, so I hope that hon. Members will excuse me if I do not take interventions. Proscribed organisations and specified organisations are defined in legislation. A proscribed organisation is an illegal organisation concerned with terrorism. Specified organisations are organisations specified by the Secretary of State under section 3 of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. For an organisation to be specified by the Secretary of State, he must believe that it
crucially,
The organisations currently specified by the Secretary of State are: the Loyalist Volunteer Force, the UVF, the Red Hand Commando—that answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South about loyalist organisations that would not qualify for the scheme if they remained not on ceasefire— the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA and the Orange Volunteers. All those bodies will not, while specified, qualify for the scheme under clause 3(3)(a), which mentions “a specified organisation”. The question is whether we include proscribed organisations under the scheme. The Government have taken the view that specified organisations, and the eligibility in subsection (3), are important, and are specific and sufficient enough to ensure that the scheme, and entry into it, is defined very tightly. Government policy is that the conditions of entry into the scheme are based on, and closely follow, those for
If membership of the IRA could be proved, an individual could be prosecuted, and if the prosecution were successful—I recognise that not many have occurred—the individual would lose his or her eligibility for the scheme. That is because they had been prosecuted for that offence under clause 3(3)(c)—which refers to committing an offence after 10 April—as membership of the IRA remains a scheduled offence. So, it would be possible to undertake such a prosecution. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to withdraw the amendment, and I ask hon. Members to reject it, because I am anxious about time and about completing our consideration of this clause. Mr. Robertson: I cannot withdraw the amendment; the Minister has not satisfied us, so I wish to press it to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 16. [Division No.
AYES Bellingham, Mr. HenryBurt, Lorely Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M. Ellwood, Mr. Tobias Hermon, Lady Hunt, Mr. Jeremy McDonnell, Dr. Alasdair Robertson, Mr. Laurence Robinson, Mr. Peter Wallace, Mr. Ben Wilson, Sammy
NOES Anderson, Mr. DavidBanks, Gordon Brown, Mr. Russell Coaker, Mr. Vernon Cooper, Rosie Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester) Hanson, Mr. David Harris, Mr. Tom Hendrick, Mr. Mark Hillier, Meg Irranca-Davies, Huw McDonagh, Siobhain Moon, Mrs. Madeleine Slaughter, Mr. Andrew Todd, Mr. Mark Waltho, Lynda Question accordingly negatived. It being One o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 14 December 2005 |