Column Number: 209
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: 211
Tuesday 13 December 2005
(Afternoon)
[Part I]
[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]
4.30 pm
The Chairman: I welcome all hon. Members to the sixth sitting of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill Committee. I understand that my co-Chairman, David Taylor, worked miracles this morning and that hon. Members got through a complete clause. I hope that the momentum can be maintained, because while I in no way want to limit debate, we have to finish by 4 o’clock on Thursday afternoon.
My view is that it would be sensible for this House to express itself properly on the Bill, so that when it goes to another place, it is aware of the views of the Committee and the House of Commons. We are commencing this afternoon’s proceedings with several Divisions, which have been requested in respect of matters that have already been debated.
Amendment proposed: No. 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e) that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which currently causes, by threat against a person or persons, such person or persons to leave Northern Ireland or to be in fear of returning to Northern Ireland.’.—[Mr. Peter Robinson.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 15.
[Division No. 16]
AYES
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Burt, Lorely
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Hermon, Lady
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Öpik, Lembit
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Robinson, Mr. Peter
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Wilson, Sammy
NOES
Anderson, Mr. David
Banks, 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
Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
Todd, Mr. Mark
Waltho, Lynda
Question accordingly negatived.
Column Number: 212
Amendment proposed: No. 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e) that the applicant is not suspected of, or charged with or convicted of, an offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (torture).’.—[Mr. Donaldson.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 15.
[Division No. 17]
AYES
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Burt, Lorely
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Durkan, Mark
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Hermon, Lady
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
Öpik, Lembit
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Robinson, Mr. Peter
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Wilson, Sammy
NOES
Anderson, Mr. David
Banks, 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
Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
Todd, Mr. Mark
Waltho, Lynda
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e) that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which the Independent Monitoring Commission cannot certify is maintaining a complete cessation of paramilitary and criminal activity.’.—[Mr. Peter Robinson.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 17.
[Division No. 18]
AYES
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Durkan, Mark
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. David
Banks, Gordon
Brown, Mr. Russell
Burt, Lorely
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
Öpik, Lembit
Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
Todd, Mr. Mark
Waltho, Lynda
Question accordingly negatived.
Column Number: 213
Amendment proposed: No. 115, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—
‘(e) that the applicant would not, in the opinion of a senior member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, be a danger to the public;
(f) that the applicant has not been engaged, or is likely to be engaged, in the indirect incitement or glorification of acts of terrorism;
(g) that the applicant is not concerned or likely to be concerned in any acts of criminality.’.—[Mr. Laurence Robertson.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 18.
[Division No. 19]
AYES
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Durkan, Mark
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. David
Banks, Gordon
Brown, Mr. Russell
Burt, Lorely
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
Öpik, Lembit
Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
Todd, Mr. Mark
Waltho, Lynda
Question accordingly negatived.
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 13.
[Division No. 20]
AYES
Anderson, Mr. David
Banks, 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
NOES
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Burt, Lorely
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Durkan, Mark
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Hermon, Lady
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
Öpik, Lembit
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Robinson, Mr. Peter
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Wilson, Sammy
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 214
The Chairman: It is a pretty good record to have about four or five Divisions in 12 minutes. That is not bad by any Standing Committee standard, and I congratulate the Committee most warmly.
Clause 4
Making and dealing with applications for certificates
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 4, page 3, line 19, leave out ‘or on behalf of’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 58, in clause 4, page 3, line 21, leave out
‘(or those acting on his behalf)’.
Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, South) (Lab): On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I wonder whether I might impose on your chairmanship and ask for permission for gentlemen members of the Committee to remove their jackets.
The Chairman: I always seek to help Committee members to feel comfortable and relaxed, because we generally make more progress that way. If gentlemen wish to disrobe, they may do so—and take off their jackets.
Lorely Burt: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. May I congratulate you on the brilliant way that you have begun in expediting the business and on your consideration for gentlemen members of the Committee? I presume that you mean the lady Committee members may remove their jackets as well.
The Chairman: If they must.
Lorely Burt: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 56 and 58, which get to the heart of the most crucial issue for Liberal Democrats—the participation of the applicant in the process.
The suggestion that any qualifying offender will not have to appear before the special tribunal to avail themselves of the scheme is offensive. The amendments would ensure that the applicant had to take the initiative and make the application himself or herself.
Mr. Harris: I rise to echo the words of the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and to remind my hon. Friend the Minister that there are those of us on the Government Benches who feel that, however intense the feelings on both sides, this legislation should find its way on to the statute book in some form. I must also tell him, however, that the loyalty of those on these Benches who support the Government should not be stretched too far.
There seems to be a real issue of natural justice here, and I hope my hon. Friend appreciates that there are those of us on these Benches who would normally agree with what has been said in moving the amendment. Can he reassure us that the Government are open to persuasion on this point?
Column Number: 215
I cannot understand why we would ever want to go down the road of allowing former members of terrorist organisations, who have murdered and tortured, not to need to appear personally to answer for their terrible crimes. I simply trust that the Minister can reassure me and my hon. Friends that the Government take the issue extremely seriously.
4.45 pm
Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): Again, it is a pleasure to sit under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas. I hope I will feel the same way at midnight, but I am sure that I will, if indeed we are still here at midnight. I rise to speak in support of amendments Nos. 56 and 58. They would amend clause 4, which I find particularly offensive.
Clause 4 is entitled “Making and dealing with applications for certificates”.
It is not concerned with court appearances. Subsection (1) says:
“An application for a certificate of eligibility must be made by or on behalf of the applicant in the manner required by the certification commissioner.”
Amendment No. 56 would remove the option
“on behalf of the applicant”
while amendment No. 58 would remove almost identical wording in clause 4(2):
“The applicant (or those acting on his behalf) must provide any information”.
I would like the Minister agree to the deletion of the words
“on behalf of the applicant”
and
“those acting on his behalf”.
I say that for several reasons.
In Committee, we have to remain focused on the end that the Government wish to achieve. Here, that is an amnesty—a get-out-of-jail-free card for those guilty of extremely serious offences through 30 years of unremitting violence. I compare that with an application, for example, to become a voter in Northern Ireland. Unless there are serious medical or literacy problems, the applicant—the potential voter—is required to apply for individual registration. Likewise, if one requests a passport, it is the applicant, not those acting on behalf of the family, who must apply.
It strikes me as mildly ridiculous, to put it politely, that an applicant who is going to benefit from an amnesty at the end of this process will be able to call in aid their local Sinn Fein representative to apply on their behalf. The very least they should be obliged to do is fill out the application form themselves.
Again, I counsel the Minister to be cautious of making it easier or more advantageous for those who will benefit but are outside the jurisdiction—known, quite rightly, as OTRs—as compared to those within the jurisdiction. I say that because clause 4 cannot be read alone. One has to bear it in mind—I realise, Sir Nicholas, that I am not allowed to jump well ahead—that the very next clause indicates that when an
Column Number: 216
application is made, it has immediate consequences. It will suspend court proceedings if they have commenced, or prevent proceedings from beginning. So, those within the jurisdiction have a natural incentive to make an application themselves.
I want an assurance from the Minister. If he will not accept the amendment—though I hope that he will, as it would improve the Bill—the very least he can do is, again, explain to the Committee that the words
“on behalf of the applicant”
and
“those acting on his behalf”
have not been written into clause 4 to give an unnecessary and unjustifiable advantage to OTR terrorists.
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull. I am unsure of the Government’s intention in using the language they have used in the Bill. The commissioner will have no way of knowing whether the person is acting on behalf of the applicant, unless the applicant has signed the application off. I could put in an application for someone, and the certifying officer would not know whether that had been done with or without permission unless it was signed off by that person. The only way that this can be dealt with is on the basis that applications bear the person’s signature.
If there is such a form, the Liberal Democrat amendment would not necessarily require it to be filled in by the individual. It would require that person to approve it and to sign it off. The legislation cannot work unless there is the requirement for the applicant to sign the application. Otherwise, the commission will waste a lot of energy in looking at applications that have been submitted vexatiously, on the assumption that that will enable people to find out from the prosecution service whether there is a case against certain individuals.
I hope that everyone recognises that if the Minister could make the giant leap forward of accepting this, there would be a consequence. This measure stands on all fours with the issues covered by, for instance, amendment No. 24, which would require a presence in the court itself. I do not think that the logic that defends this issue can depart when it comes to considering such a presence.
I hope that the Minister makes the minor concession involved in relation to the amendment, but he should also recognise that it would require him to make another further down the line.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Like other Members, I support the amendment. I do not wish to labour the points that have been made about it ensuring that anyone who would benefit from the scheme would have to assert that they did certain things. They would have to take some responsibility for their application. As others have said, they would not have to be the sole producers of every single part of it—people could get whatever assistance and guidance they needed—but they would have to take responsibility for the application.
Column Number: 217
I hope that the Government will support the amendment. Last week in Committee, they argued against other amendments on the grounds that some people might come along and make all sorts of specious claims that they had committed all sorts of offences. We were told that it is not unknown for people to take the rap for others.
If we are asked to give an argument of that sort credibility in relation to other amendments, we must also address the issue that applications could be made unbeknownst to people. They could be made on behalf of people because someone else was making an application and they wanted to ensure that the certificates and the freezing of evidence trails applied to others as well. People could have applications made in their name unbeknownst to them; it is unclear what people are ready to do. That is a more likely prospect than the scenario the Government outlined last week—all sorts of people queuing up to take the rap for things they had nothing to do with.
Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point, but will he also consider the possibility that somebody might stitch somebody else up with such an application? They might not have committed or taken part in any crime or terrorist offence, but a form might be filled out to that effect.
Mark Durkan: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is likely that people could submit applications on behalf of others to spread protection and involve others in an effort to protect themselves. Equally, people could do that vexatiously and provocatively in an attempt to create difficulties for other named persons who might have been content to wait and sit it out. In taking the hon. Gentleman’s point, I hope that he will support the amendment.
Mr. Jeremy Hunt (South-West Surrey) (Con): I, too, strongly support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull. It seems that we all accept that the Government are trying to facilitate a healing process in a very difficult situation, but the Minister is, in effect, attempting to help a group of people—who, in many cases, have committed murder—to escape justice. That process makes all hon. Members extremely uncomfortable.
We must be incredibly careful that we do not heap injustice upon injustice through this extremely difficult and, indeed, repugnant process. The feelings and concerns of victims are of most concern to those who dislike this Bill. I ask the Minister how he thinks a victim will feel about a process that goes so very far in the direction of assuaging the concerns and worries of terrorists who have committed murders.
Why would a terrorist not wish to turn up in person for a process by which they will escape all punishment for their crimes? Because they do not trust the judicial process? Because they do not wish to reveal their whereabouts? Is it so important to assuage their fears that the Government are prepared to add fuel to the flames of injustice felt by the victims because of those terrible crimes?
Column Number: 218
I say to the Minister that there is a logical conclusion to allowing people not to turn up in person. Why not allow them to apply online for a certificate? That is how ridiculous it is when someone escapes a jail sentence for truly terrible crimes. One of the hon. Members from the Social Democratic and Labour party made a point this morning with which I agree.
Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about internet applications. In fact, to have an on-the-run terrorist apply online for a certificate would be preferable to that application being made without the permission, knowledge or acknowledgement of that person. The provisions in the Bill are less preferable than a terrorist sitting down and applying for a certificate online, when they would at least be taking some responsibility.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated how utterly absurd it is to allow any process whereby someone who will be excused any punishment for a murder does not have to turn up in person. I agree with the sentiments behind what he said.
One way by which one might win over the victims of atrocities is by setting up a process that gets one a little closer to understanding the truth of what happened when those crimes took place. If one introduces a system by which someone does not even have to turn up in person to be excused of their crimes, the chances of discovering the truth of what happened are dramatically reduced.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I welcome you back to the Committee, Sir Nicholas. This is the beginning of the discussion about the involvement—or lack of it—of the applicant in the process. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull. Indeed, our names are also on the amendment paper.
We will have a longer debate about appearances in court when we reach clause 8. So far, we are discussing the making of an application. However, the two matters are linked. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, this is just the beginning of the deeply offensive part of the Bill. It is all offensive, but this is the worst section. Once someone has applied for a certificate on someone else’s behalf, whether he or she has permission to do so or not, clause 5, which is a bad clause, will kick in. Clause 6, then clause 7—exemption from arrest—and then clause 8, under which individuals do not have to attend court, will all kick in. Clause 4 is the beginning of the process.
5 pm
Surely it is right that applicants should be very much involved in that process. They should be made to understand what is happening and to have some sense of the victims’ concerns. I cannot see why the Government have designed the Bill in this way. Why should applicants not at least have to sign the application in order to authorise it? Whenever one is nominated for something as trivial as membership of a club or for something as important as the leadership of the Conservative party, of which we have had a bit of practice in recent years, one must consent to the
Column Number: 219
nomination. The Bill is therefore an extraordinary piece of legislation in many ways, and clause 4 is yet another example of how the Bill disregards the victims’ feelings. I find that very offensive. I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the non-involvement of applicants in the application process.
With your permission, Sir Nicholas, I am sure that we shall return to what should prove to be a longer debate on clause 8, which deals with appearance in court. However, I shall be very interested to see how the Minister can defend this particular clause.
Mr. Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): I would like to ask the Minister whether he will make clear in his response what acting on behalf of means and whether a definition is required in the Bill, so that we know that not anyone can assume responsibility for making an application. For example, would a solicitor have to be appointed formally? If the Government were to provide clarification, that would be welcome. I ask the Minister to make clear in his response whether “on behalf of” means that someone must be appointed to make an application.
There is a contradiction here. The Government have said that the Bill is a continuation of the early release scheme and that it covers those on the run or who are wanted in connection with offences. However, my understanding of the early release scheme was that prisoners still underwent a procedure in order to be released. No one said, “Here are the keys. Let yourself out of the Maze.” Prisoners still went through a proper procedure and were released on licence. I do not see why the on-the-runs should be exempt from some form of physical procedure in order to qualify for the scheme. The Government would be justified in putting right that contradiction. They should say to Sinn Fein and the other interested parties that a procedure had to be undergone in the early release scheme, so it would be unfair not to include one in this Bill.
|
