Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 111, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out

‘(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)’.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

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

(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.’.

Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

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.

Tom Harris (PPS (Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State), Department of Health; Glasgow South, Labour)

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.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

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.

Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

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.

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   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 (North Down, UUP)

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?

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

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.

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 (North Down, UUP)

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?

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

We are saying that this should apply specifically to members of the security forces who meet the conditions in clause 3. The aim of the new clause is to separate out members of the security forces in respect of other provisions on the certificates of eligibility in that clause.

We are saying that the commissioner must issue a certificate in circumstances in which the applicant meets the two requirements that we have detailed in new clause 2(1)(a) and (b): the applicant is accused of an offence committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland and it appears to the commissioner from the information available to him that the applicant meets the conditions in clause 3.

We are trying to make that distinction and to separate out individuals who will benefit under the other subsections of clause 3 in terms of their applying for a certificate of eligibility, so that a separate standard or set of criteria applies to members of the security forces and no moral equivalence is created, as it will be under the Bill. We are not seeking to draw a parallel between members of the security forces and members of paramilitary organisations.

David Anderson (Blaydon, Labour)

Let me say first that I am very happy to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas.

Does the hon. Gentleman apply the term “security forces” to every member of the security forces? He mentioned the possibility of troops on the streets killing people. Does the term also apply to people who may well have been involved in deliberate collusion with terrorists?

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

If members of the security forces have been involved in what the hon. Gentleman describes as deliberate collusion, that suggests that they are somehow involved with a paramilitary organisation. If they are, different standards may have to apply in those circumstances. In my experience in Northern Ireland, however, the number of members of the security forces who have engaged in such activities and who have not already been apprehended and subjected to the full rigour of the law in Northern Ireland is very small.

For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, and so that there is no doubt, let me be clear that my party believes in justice. We believe that anyone who is guilty of a scheduled offence, whether they are a member of a paramilitary organisation or of the armed forces, should be subjected to the full process of the law. That is why we are opposed in principle to the Bill.

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

Surely someone who was involved in deliberate collusion would fall into the category of a person who supports a proscribed organisation.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

My hon. Friend is quite right. As I said, the premise of the previous intervention is that such an individual is involved with a paramilitary organisation, so they will be subjected to the standards that apply to members of paramilitary organisations under the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies (PPS (Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Ogmore, Labour)

Welcome to the Chair, Sir Nicholas.

I genuinely seek clarification from the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). Does he accept that individuals involved in collusion will fall under clause 1(1)(a), which includes the phrase “in connection with terrorism”, but that they may not fall under the clause as it would be amended by amendment No. 111, which would leave out

“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”?

If he accepts that, will individuals guilty of collusion as opposed to taking part directly in terrorist activities fall under new clause 2 or clause 3?

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

I accept that the hon. Gentleman seeks clarification. This will be a matter of interpretation by the commissioner. New clause 2(1)(a) states that the commissioner must issue a certificate in circumstances where

“the applicant is accused of an offence committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland”.

If it is apparent that the charges against the individual arise because they were colluding in terrorism rather than combating it, the hon. Gentleman can draw his own conclusions, as will the commissioner. We want to create a clear distinction between members of the security forces and members of armed paramilitary organisations.

The Bill creates a moral equivalence between members of the security forces and paramilitary terrorist organisations, which I know is deeply resented by soldiers and police officers in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, it would be absurd—untenable—for terrorists to benefit from the legislation and members of the security forces to be subject to an entirely different regime and to have to go into the dock to be put before the full judicial process in Northern Ireland.

That position is without prejudice to our underlying and principled opposition to the legislation and the concept behind it. Let there be no doubt about that, lest anyone seek to misrepresent this party’s position. We tabled the new clause with much reluctance, in a simple effort to protect members of the security forces from a proposal that treats them exactly the same as a member of a terrorist organisation. We are not prepared to stand by and let that happen without making some effort to prevent it.

Huw Irranca-Davies (PPS (Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Ogmore, Labour)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way once again—he is generous in doing so—and I thank him for his clarification on new clause 2, but does he accept that amendment No. 1 would wipe out the new clause? If we were to omit the words in brackets on line 6 of page 1 of the Bill—

“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”—

that would take away that possibility.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Order. We are not considering amendment No. 1 at this stage. If the hon. Gentleman is making a passing reference for clarification purposes, he can continue, but we will debate amendment No. 1 later.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that this is belt and braces. We are trying to cover every angle possible. If you are looking for contradictions in the legislation, you do not have to look too far to find them.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman may refer to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). I am not looking for anything other than good debate.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

Indeed, Sir Nicholas. In the emotion of the argument, we forget to be parliamentary in our language. The hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in finding contradictions in the   legislation if he needs to. We seek to make changes that will alter the Bill’s nature to provide at least some basis whereby members of the security forces can be separated from members of terrorist organisations. That is an important principle, which we want to underpin through the new clause.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

I suggest to hon. Members that, if they wish to contribute, they should rise to enable me to get an idea of who wants to speak to the amendment.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

If I understand the hon. Member for Ogmore, he meant amendment No. 111 and his point is that the amendment would do the opposite of new clause 2.

Huw Irranca-Daviesindicated assent.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. That is my interpretation as well.

Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

I echo the words of hon. Member for Lagan Valley: if such individuals are involved in collusion, that is terrorist activity, not anti-terrorist activity.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I will come on to that point in a few moments. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury is also seeking to address this distasteful element of what is at least apparent moral equivalence. I see him nodding. Therefore, amendment No. 111 and new clause 2 address the same issue, but in different ways.

I am not convinced that the Bill is the appropriate place in which to deal with the security forces. The Liberal Democrats have always said that the police cannot be seen to be above the law, but we do not feel that this legislation is the right way to deal with members of the security forces who may be found to have committed offences in Northern Ireland. We would much prefer that to be dealt with separately.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that comment, and I concur with him. My party would prefer the issue of the security forces to be taken out of the Bill entirely and to be dealt with separately in distinct and unique legislation. That would have been our first choice, but, unfortunately, the reality is that we have to deal with what is in front of us, and the Government have made no suggestion that they intend to introduce such legislation.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

In that regard, perhaps the Minister understands the frustrations that many of us feel in respect of this legislation, which cause us to try to improve it. The Bill is so flawed that there are dramatically different approaches to trying to improve it. What the hon. Member for Lagan Valley has just said echoes the sentiments of many Members.

Notwithstanding that, I turn to the point that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury made in his intervention and which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made earlier. If members of the security forces are shown to have colluded with   proscribed organisations, they will, in effect, have been shown to have committed an act of terrorism, and that will be covered by the Bill.

As far as I can tell, the phrase

“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”

relates to illegal actions taken by members of the security forces that were not directly related to a proscribed organisation. I do not understand who the Government have in mind. Perhaps the Minister can explain exactly who they are seeking to address by including that specific phrase. They cannot be seeking to address members of the security forces who have colluded with proscribed organisations, because it would be otiose to add that as it is already covered. Therefore, I am slightly concerned that the Government might not have thought through what they are trying to do in this regard. I am happy to withdraw my concern if the Minister addresses it adequately.

There is a much simpler way to deal with this matter. We do not think that the Bill is the right way to deal with the security forces, and I should add that we do not think that it is the right way to deal with fugitives who have been on the run and have thus far avoided a fair trial and the prospect of time in custody. If the Government truly want a simple and consistent solution that obviates the need for amendment No. 111, new clause 2 and much else, why do they not consider simply using the existing judicial process?

No Committee member would object if a member of the security forces or somebody associated with a proscribed organisation had to face the full force of the law through the existing and established courts in Northern Ireland. There is obviously the question of licensing, but if the Bill were simplified to enable existing court structures to be used, it would be relatively straightforward for us to introduce the licensing element as an addition or modification for a specific set of individuals, without having to set up a quasi-judicial parallel system in Northern Ireland as a whole.

I hope that the Minister can answer some of the questions that I have raised. The core question seems to be why, if the Government want to deal in an even-handed way with members of the security services who have broken the law and with members of the public who have been involved in proscribed organisations, they insist on producing an artificial, quasi-judicial structure, when they could achieve all their goals by introducing a licensing scheme in the context of the existing courts. That would be simpler. Although it would still be difficult for many people to deal with, such a scheme would obviate the need for complex arrangements that will, I suspect, create unintended consequences that will probably force us back to secondary legislation later.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

On amendment No. 111, I am a little confused about some of the interpretations, which shows that the Bill needs clarification. It was explained to us that the phrase used in clause 1(1),

“in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”,

before the words in parentheses, was meant to be the catch-all that covered everyone. Supposedly the reference to the “affairs of Northern Ireland” meant that the measure included the Army, the police and anyone else outside the terrorist stream who might have been accused.

It seemed to us that the words in parentheses were meant to ensure that if anyone in a paramilitary organisation was charged in relation to any sort of offence, they would be able to say that they did it as a function of their membership of that paramilitary organisation, even though the crime would not be regarded as primarily a terrorist crime. The text in parentheses seems to be a sort of jarring underlining that is really about making sure that the Bill is all things to all bad men. That is why the Bill is a bad one. Unless the Minister can give us a different explanation or an assurance about that, I shall support amendment No. 111.

I said earlier that amendments would be tabled that would test the Bill to its logical and moral destruction, but new clause 2, which was tabled by Democratic Unionist party Members, brings their own case to its logical and moral destruction. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the view of the Superintendents Association. The association’s stated position was clear: it was appalled at the suggestion that members of the security forces would be equated in the Bill with terrorists and paramilitaries. As far as the association was concerned, any member of any section of the security forces who was accused of doing anything either in a private capacity or while exercising due authority should stand before a court and be subject to the full rigour of the law. The terms in which the hon. Gentleman presented the new clause misrepresented the position set out by the Superintendents Association.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the letter from the Superintendents Association called into question the whole process set out in the Bill, whether it applies to members of the security forces or to terrorists and people involved in terrorist organisations? It was in that context that the association said specifically that everyone, including police officers, should be subject to the law. However, that is not the context that we are dealing with now.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I take that point from the hon. Gentleman, and I fully recognise that it reflects our own position. We should not be dealing with legislation of this type at this time. There are bigger priorities to deal with in terms of implementing parts of the agreement before we set out to resolve supposed anomalies that have arisen since the agreement.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

We have outlined our position: we are opposed in principle to the Bill, so we hold the same position as the Superintendents Association. Nevertheless we have a responsibility as Members of   Parliament to seek to amend the Bill in any way we can, knowing that there is the possibility that it will pass through Parliament and become law. If we fail in our duty to try to protect members of the security forces and separate them out from terrorists, they will not thank us if they find themselves drawn together with terrorists and that a moral equivalence is created between the two groups. That is the motivation behind our amendment. It is not in any sense an attempt to sanitise something that, quite frankly, is unacceptable.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I think that with his amendments the hon. Gentleman is trying to create a cocktail of the totally unacceptable and the highly unacceptable. I do not believe that that is a sound basis—

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

You should table amendments.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

We have tabled amendments. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman’s approach is a sound basis for legislating.

Let me examine the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments further. It is clear that under new clause 2 the commissioner will automatically issue a certificate if the person who is applying for it is a member of the security forces. The points made about combating terrorism—people are drawing a distinction between efforts made to combat terrorism and collusion, which they are saying is terrorism—signal a change of tune from some members of the DUP and others. Many times in the past when evidence of collusion was produced, when allegations of collusion were being made, members of the DUP and some members of the Ulster Unionist party justified it on the basis that the end justifies the means and that kid gloves could not be used when combating terrorism.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

How many people have been convicted of collusion with terrorist organisations since the troubles began?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

None. That is exactly the problem. Many families suffered death at the hands of loyalists who were being handled by members of the force research unit, members of special branch and people involved in military intelligence. The complaints and the evidence for that are coming not only from those families but from serving or former police officers who were frustrated and appalled because information and intelligence that they gleaned and passed on was suppressed by special branch to protect its agents and informants.

Some cases are being investigated by the police ombudsman and some now rest with the historic inquiries team. The whole issue of collusion is there. The case of Raymond McCord and the conduct of Mr. Haddock and the special protection that he got to commit crime after crime after crime are all there, too. Collusion was very real. It was practised not simply by people going out on their own after hours and engaging in rogue activity, but by people using the authority they had by virtue of their military or policing role. They suppressed the good instincts and the good lawful intents of others in the security forces and in the police service.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the police ombudsman has been in post for five years. Is he suggesting that he has no confidence that the police ombudsman could investigate properly any of the allegations of collusion that he has outlined in a most offensive manner this morning?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I have already said that cases are being investigated by the police ombudsman. In some cases files have gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We must await the outcome. I have mentioned some cases on which we await developments. The fact is that it is only since we have had the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, supplemented by the historic inquiries team, that we have been able to investigate the allegations of collusion that people had been content to leave hanging in the air. Families who had suffocated with frustration for many years, listening as their complaints were dismissed and they were branded terrorists and terrorist sympathisers, finally had a means of finding the truth and getting some redress, but suddenly along comes this legislation and their hope is again snuffed out. It would be dashed by new clause 2, because it is designed to cut off any trail that leads to the truth about collusion. No doubt that is why some hon. Members might support it.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

Again, to remove doubt let me say that none of the proposals in the Bill comes from the DUP. The hon. Gentleman will not find any policy document of my party that suggests anything of that nature. We have always supported the rule of law. We believe that people who have broken the law should be subject to the law. In the new clause we seek to create a distinction between the types of case that the commissioner will consider—that is all. We do not seek to cover anything up. We would say that anybody who is guilty of the crimes that the hon. Gentleman has described should undergo the full judicial process.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

All allegations in relation to collusion need to be exhaustively examined and pursued. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley says that his party has always upheld the rule of law and that that its position on terrorism has always been clear. I remind hon. Members that for many years the Northern Ireland Office insisted that the Ulster Defence Association should remain a legal organisation. Everybody knew that it was up to its neck in crime, murder and the worst excesses of immoral activity—it was living off funds from racketeering and drugs and was responsible for many sectarian murders. But not only did the NIO justify not proscribing that organisation, the two main Unionist parties did so too. The pretence was that organisations such as the UDA, loyalist paramilitaries, existed and acted only in response to republicans. That was a complete lie, but a lie that was wholesaled by the NIO and retailed very readily by the two main Unionist parties. I do not take lectures from anybody here about who has been right all along, who has been consistent all along about what constitutes terrorism.

The Government were prepared to act as they did on the basis that the loyalists were a bit leaky and a bit flaky, and if they kept them where they were, the Government would have better intelligence. However, the security forces did not always act on that better intelligence. They not only allowed the loyalists to carry out crimes but solicited some of them. That approach was not limited to loyalists—people acting on behalf of the state and with the authority of the state did not collude only with loyalists, they were also complicit in republican crimes, again to protect informers. We have only to look at the Stakeknife story to see evidence of that. People were allowed to be killed by the IRA because it was in the interests of the state to protect Stakeknife and other such people. Supposedly, those ugly, desperate means were justified by the greater end of combating terrorism. In Northern Ireland we had not only terrorist organisations parading themselves as paramilitaries, but military and security interests have behaved as para-terrorists. That has been part of the story and suffering in Northern Ireland.

There was a lot of emotion in the debate on Second Reading. Many people mentioned the names of victims and DUP Members put great emphasis on the position of the victims, but they talked only of the victims of the IRA. They were not interested in other classes of victim. I stand here interested in being responsible and accountable to every class of victim, be they victims of the IRA and other republican groups, loyalist groups and directly at the hands of state forces on a day such as Bloody Sunday, when paratroopers committed murder. I agree with the coroner that it was sheer, unadulterated murder.

My grievance with what the paratroopers did that day was not only that they killed 13 people on the streets of Derry. As a schoolboy, I knew what they did for recruitment to the IRA, what the state then did with the stilted lies of Widgery, and what various political interests did by saying, “Oh, those people were not murdered. Those people should not have been out there. The Army were acting properly. They were fired upon.” I know that damage and harm from that action were felt for many years afterwards and that many more deaths occurred because of it.

I cannot accept new clause 2 on any grounds, but particularly not on the grounds that have been argued for here—the pretence that people in uniform were acting in the name of the state and have absolutely nothing to account for.

Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

It is not especially relevant to the amendment that I moved, but the hon. Gentleman obviously feels strongly about these matters. Everyone does. However, it is clause 5(1)(b) that draws a line under inquiries have already been undertaken. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not so much what is proposed in the amendment that is objectionable, but what is proposed in the Bill?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I already made that point clear on Second Reading and elsewhere. The whole Bill is objectionable.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I want to clarify where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I accept and understand that there are objections to the Bill as drafted. However, is he saying that a terrorist who committed an act of terrorism before 10 April 1998 and who was charged with murder should be convicted and then, under the terms of the Bill, be released on licence, yet a soldier who is charged with a murder committed before 10 April 1998 and who is then put before the tribunal should be convicted of murder and serve a prison sentence? That is the logic of his argument. I just want to get to the nub of it.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I can assure the Minister that the logic of my argument is that the Bill should not be in front of us at all. The logic of the Government’s argument that was false when they pretended that the Bill flowed from the Good Friday agreement. The logic of my argument is that we should not be considering how to deal with anomalies affecting people who might otherwise find themselves subject to the courts until we have properly addressed how we can create a framework that provides for truth, recognition and remembrance in terms that are satisfactory to victims. We must put the victims and their needs first, not conveniences and covers for the victim makers. The Government are working on false terms.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a soldier is convicted of an offence that was committed before 10 April 1998, that soldier would benefit from the early release terms of the Belfast agreement? If so, where does he draw the line between the provisions of the agreement that provide for early release and the provisions of the Bill?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I accept—I accepted at the time that the agreement was negotiated and when we put the agreement to the public in a referendum—that its early release provisions would mean that those who were subsequently charged with offences committed prior to 10 April 1998, be they soldier, IRA or loyalist, would serve two years at most for any conviction that they received subsequent to the agreement. That was made clear during the referendum campaign, when different victims’ groups raised different questions about what the provisions would mean. Ministers made it clear that they were not about wiping the slate clean—that they knew that two years did not sound much but they could assure people that there would be full pursuit of all the outstanding cases. Various victims’ groups were reassured not only by Ministers, but by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that that would be the case, and in good faith they were so reassured by parties such as mine that that is what the provisions would mean.

The Bill betrays that. That is why so many victims’ groups feel betrayed. The Bill states that nothing more can be pursued in relation to anyone. I accept the point that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury made: in effect, the Bill would bring to an end any serious pursuit of any inquiries. It would mean that they would come to no sort of fruition, result or outcome that would be   meaningful to anyone. That is why the Bill is wrong. It is not the way to deal with the past and it is not the way to build our future.

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

I thought that the hon. Gentleman slightly dodged the question that the Minister put to him. May I put it to the hon. Gentleman in a different way? I accept that he is against the Bill in its entirety. Would he prefer the outcome of the proceedings in this House and the other place to be that the Bill goes through with the provisions that benefit terrorists but without the benefit also being received by those who have been members of the security forces?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. If the Minister found my answer unclear, I will make it clear.

I return to the false premise for the legislation that the Government presented. All of us are left facing the contradictions and inconsistencies that the Bill creates. The Government tell us that the Bill was introduced to honour a political commitment—a political deal—that they made first at Weston Park and that they then amplified at Hillsborough. It was a deal that they negotiated with no party other than Sinn Fein and to which no other party was a party but Sinn Fein and the Government or Governments.

The terms on which the Governments made their pronouncements after Weston Park were confined to people who were literally on the run—those who were outside the jurisdiction. The case was made that there was an anomaly affecting them and people who had been released, because if they had been within the jurisdiction and in jail, they would have been released. I see no problem in holding the Government to the original premise offered for this legislation. I might not like it or agree with it—I said at the time of Weston Park, as did John Hume and Seamus Mallon, who were then leader and deputy leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party—that the matter was not a priority, that it was not in the Good Friday agreement and that the focus should be on delivering the agreement.

However, if the Government say that they are honour-bound to introduce the legislation on the grounds that I mentioned, we will table and support amendments that confine the legislation to doing precisely those things. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I said that we will test the Bill to its logical and its moral destruction.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend—accept that after discussions that were undertaken by my predecessors at Weston Park in 2003, documents were published outlining the scheme in relation to the so-called on-the-runs, but that the new ministerial team considered the implications in the light of the ongoing inquiries and potential charges and judged that, as much he and other hon. Members might regard the scheme as objectionable, it would be equally objectionable to have members of the security forces who were charged with offences committed before 10 April 1998 being liable to serve sentences in prison while people who had undertaken obnoxious terrorist acts walked free on licence having been   convicted of those acts? We accept that they have committed terrible acts, but we are trying to settle this matter for the future peace of Northern Ireland.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I take the Minister’s point, although Weston Park was in 2001. The statement—it was not a deal—that the Governments issued afterwards providing for legislation about on-the-runs was not accepted by us. In our response to the Governments after the release of that document, we made it very clear that we did not see that as part of the Good Friday agreement. So, we denied it life at the time.

After Hillsborough in 2003, documents were published alongside but not as part of the joint declaration. We had two annexes: one dealing with the on-the-runs and the other dealing with the Independent Monitoring Commission and sanctions. Those annexes were not part of the joint declaration, so the Ulster Unionist party could say that if it accepted the joint declaration it had not accepted OTRs, and Sinn Fein could say that if it accepted the joint declaration it had not accepted the IMC and sanctions. It was a sort of dishonesty—the non-deal is the deal; the deal is the non-deal. That is how the process was conducted. We recorded our political and moral protest about that at the time.

We identified the fact that at Hillsborough in 2003 the Government extended the scope of the OTR provisions to cover all scheduled offences committed before 10 April 1998. At that time we warned people that that was not just about dealing with the so-called anomaly of a few dozen cases of OTRs, but that open season would be declared for anybody with anything to hide from and consequences to evade from that period. We have been consistent in that view. People in government denied that. Even as recently as a number of weeks ago, the Prime Minister told me in Downing street that the provisions of the Bill would cover no more than 60 people. Looking at the Bill today, that is clearly not the case. The Bill can cover anybody who had any involvement in the 2,100 unsolved murders that the historic inquiries team are looking into.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the phrase,

“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 (whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”,

goes even wider than the hon. Gentleman is saying and could turn into a get-out-of-jail-free card for matters of base crime that are nothing to do with the terrorist activities of Northern Ireland whatsoever?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I accept that point fully. The clause provides for anything that we can think of and anything that we might not think of that might arise in future.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

Before this hare runs loose, I assure the Committee that the Bill is about terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland. It will not provide a get-out-of-jail card for individuals involved in any other   crimes except acts defined as terrorism and acts committed in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

That raises the question what does that definition mean? All hon. Members have pointed out just how wide the definition can extend. It is so wide that it cannot even be called a definition.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for a Minister to say something like that in a Committee is all very well, but a comment made by way of intervention in another hon. Member’s speech is not the same as a judge’s interpretation of what goes on to the statute book? The Minister’s attempts to reassure us only serve to make it even more clear that the concerns of the hon. Gentleman—and just about everybody on the Opposition Benches—are not just salient, but real and that the unintended consequences that we all fear are likely to happen.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I fully concur. We have been given various statements of assurance and the Minister will try to assure us this morning and further on in our considerations. Ministers have previously tried to assure us and the public that that the Bill would be about dealing with only a handful of cases. I recognise that those cases will need to be dealt with in the proper course of time, but first victims need to be reassured that their interests have been of primary concern and have been front-loaded into the legislation; only when that has been done can we make provision for the anomalous cases. I know some of those cases well—there is one group of people who I believe are innocent and I want them to be able to benefit from a scheme in future. However, my first priority is how we tell victims that we are dealing with truth, recognition and remembrance—and when the people who I believe are innocent come back to benefit from any scheme, they should stand before a court and assert their innocence before they benefit.

Huw Irranca-Davies (PPS (Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Ogmore, Labour)

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire did not intend in any way to mislead regarding the Bill, where it states,

“in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”.

It is not “or the wider affairs of Northern Ireland”. Now, while everything that we pass on to the statute book is subject to interpretation by the judiciary and by whoever sits on these matters, would my hon. Friend not agree that it is pretty clear this relates to terrorism—not to every form of criminality?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I am not sure, Sir Nicholas, how the hon. Gentleman distinguishes between the affairs of Northern Ireland and its wider affairs. To say we are dealing with one and not the other—[Interruption.] I am quoting what the hon. Gentleman emphasised; it is,

“terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”.

It is quite clear that the words in parentheses,

“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”,

are precisely about indemnifying against anything that anybody might have committed. If they committed these other crimes as a function of their terrorism or paramilitary membership, or of their counter-terrorist work, they will say that the benefits of the scheme extend to them. Even though most of us would not regard them as terrorist crimes, they would be able to use the provisions of the clause to say that.

It is that wide open, Sir Nicholas, and it is hard to rely on the assurances that we are getting in circumstances where all previous assurances given about the legislation and its planning have turned out to count for nothing. It has not been just about an anomaly; it has been widened and widened, as we always warned it would. We warned that that would be the case after both Weston Park and Hillsborough. Even in recent months, having heard stories about certification—not just that there might be one form of certificate, but that the Secretary of State might be able to make certificates meaning that the truth has to be suppressed, and names withheld, and so on—when we were raising the issues, Ministers and the Prime Minister were telling us “no”.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

The hon. Gentleman has hinted that the legislation has been widened, and that he does not understand why. Does he think that the driving force has come from any political party? It is obviously not the SDLP and certainly not the Ulster Unionist party. Who does the hon. Gentleman understand to have widened the legislation from OTRs to include the security forces? Where was that driving force coming from?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. If we are to believe what we were told on Second Reading, the Secretary of State, having started his contribution by saying that he had merely inherited the legislation, then said that he had taken the decision to widen it to cover everybody. It may be recalled that some Conservative Members accused him of trying, in those remarks, to use the security forces as a human shield to protect an objectionable Bill.

I do not know exactly where it came from. All I know is that the only people involved in the provenance of the Bill were the British Government and Sinn Fein. I am unaware of any other party having any discussion at any stage of its gestation period. Certainly, whenever raising questions about it, we were blandly reassured that we were being hyper-suspicious and almost mad to think that the Bill would be extended beyond that limited and anomalous group, the OTRs. Just weeks ago in Downing street, we were being given assurances that a maximum of 60 people would be covered by the provisions of the Bill.

Somebody, somewhere has decided to take a different course from that which they had told us about. That is why I do not accept the Bill. Neither can I take lightly any assurances that are now given, as no previous assurances have counted for anything.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

First, may I reiterate that the whole Bill is unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist party? We would desire that the whole Bill be thrown out. However, if the Government are intent on continuing with the Bill, certain things will have to be done to make it, in the description that has been given, less unacceptable than it is. The amendments show why the Bill is unacceptable.

Amendment No. 111 relates to the strange phrase in clause 1,

“whether committed for terrorist purposes or not”.

I have listened to the Minister’s assurance that it will apply only to crimes related to terrorism, but the history of Northern Ireland shows that people who have been involved in terrorist activities are prepared to have anything that they have done treated as part of their terrorist involvement. Furthermore, the terrorist organisations to which they belong have been prepared to endorse that when it has come to imprisonment. People have gone onto the loyalist or republican prison wings even though some of them were caught for freelance extortion, bank robbery, theft, assault or rape. Their terrorist organisations have accepted them under their wing and they have been treated as, and had all the privileges of, people involved in terrorism.

The relevant phrase in clause 1 opens the door for a tribunal to consider all manner of crimes. Perhaps the Minister will consider, as an example, the offence in which people broke into the home of a politician—I will not mention the name, but some hon. Members may remember it—and, because he was not there, assaulted his wife and carved the name of their organisation on her chest. Would that be regarded as a crime committed for terrorist purposes or not? That, to me, is covered by the clause and that is why I think no one in the Committee could possibly oppose the amendment.

I could list numerous crimes of the kind that I have described. The gory details have sometimes even been withheld from members of the family, but the police will tell us about them. Perhaps we will come to those matters on later clauses. I should like an assurance from the Minister that such a crime would not be covered by the phrase in question. Given the record of the way in which terrorist crimes have been treated in the Northern Ireland prison system, precedents have been set for a tribunal to accept all manner of horrendous crimes under that phrase. If it stays in the Bill there will be nothing that we can do to prevent certificates and licences being given in those circumstances.

Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as the parameters for paramilitary activity appear to be broadening it is particularly important to strike out that phrase?

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Absolutely. Any Northern Ireland Member could give examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, in particular, has been involved in quite a number of cases of freelance extortion from building sites, shopkeepers and pubs—[Laughter.]

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

Would my hon. Friend please define the involvement?

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify what appears to be an unfortunate allegation against the hon. Member for Belfast, East.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Had the intervention not occurred, Sir Nicholas, I would have got to the end of the sentence. Those incidents occurred in his constituency. When the perpetrators were caught they claimed membership of organisations and were treated in the prison system with all the privileges resulting from the association of them and their crimes with a paramilitary organisation. For that reason, I believe that the amendment is important.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman asked the Minister to give an assurance that the legislation would not be applied in that way. Does he agree that even if the Minister were to give us a verbal assurance on that in this debate, it would count for nothing in a court, because it would be a matter of course that anybody mixed up in the kind of abhorrent crime that the hon. Gentleman describes would be able to invoke this phrase in the legislation in his or her defence?

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Absolutely, and of course there is already precedent, as that has been accepted within the prison and court systems in Northern Ireland. Therefore, there is no reason why a tribunal would not take the exact same line.

I suspect that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is on our side in respect of some issues to do with new clause 2, so I do not want to engage in battle with him on it. However, the most telling comment in his speech was when he said he found the Bill unacceptable and that all aspects of it should be excluded, with one exception, which was the on-the-runs aspect. He said he was going to hold the Government to that.

However, it will become apparent when we come on to address further amendments that the hon. Gentleman is not going to test the legislation to that limit; that is clear from the front page of the amendment paper, where there are amendments that cover all terrorist offences. This is the question that the hon. Gentleman must ask himself. If this Bill is going to be enacted, is he happy for it to be so in a form that gives terrorists a get-out-of-jail-free card and at the same time leads to police officers and others going to jail for things that they might be found guilty of?

I agree with the Superintendents Association. The police have been up front on this matter. They do not want any special consideration; they have not made a plea to my party or any members of it for special consideration. In fact, they have gone on public record as saying that if a policeman has behaved unlawfully he should be subject to the full rigours of the law, and should bear the penalties of the full rigours of the law. However, they say that in the context of the Bill being wrong and unacceptable. If it is enacted, it would be most unfair treatment to include all terrorists in an amnesty and then to say that members of the law   enforcement services should face the full rigours of the law. No one would understand that. For that reason, we ask for new clause 2 to be added to the legislation.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Is it not the case that if the Bill applied only to OTRs, it would never get approval in the House of Lords? What the Government are trying to do—the hon. Member for Foyle confirmed that the legislation is being widened at the behest of the Secretary of State—is to put in a so-called sweetener. That is a horrible word. By including the security forces, they hope to get the Bill through. Their motivation is corrupting, and it is unacceptable to have security forces in the same Bill as OTRs.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Absolutely; I agree that the Government in their perversity believe that this would be a sweetener. It shows how corrupt the Bill is that it is thought that a sweetener can be added to it that will somehow make it acceptable. It is not acceptable, with or without a sweetener. That is why my party voted against the Bill in its entirety on Second Reading, as did the hon. Lady and others. However, we cannot give this get-out-of-jail-free card to terrorists and have different treatment for members of the security forces. New clause 2 seeks to ensure that there is a separation between the two situations. If we do not have that in a separate Bill, at least we have the treatment of the security forces in a separate clause, so that distinction is made. That is why I support new clause 2.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 111 and new clause 2.

For many years, I served in Northern Ireland both in green and in intelligence areas. The comments of the hon. Member for Foyle are insulting to many members of security forces, as is the idea that on-the-runs may be covered by the Bill, but members of the security forces may not be.

We should remember that 1998 was not the date of the first ceasefire, or the beginning of the process. I was there at the beginning of the process in 1994 and remember that on-the-runs and the wider scope covered by the Bill were not part of the conditions for that ceasefire, nor were they among the conditions at Stormont in 1998. How quickly they have snuck in under the wire.

The Government wish to broaden the application of the legislation. I finally got an answer from the Secretary of State on the number of on-the-runs who would be covered by the Bill and perhaps it reveals their motive for widening it to cover more offences. There are only five on-the-runs—in fact, six are listed, but one of those escaped after Stormont. Perhaps only five people were not enough to satisfy the appetite of Sinn Fein and a request was made to broaden the scope of the Bill.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

It would be enlightening for the Committee if the hon. Gentleman read out the reply that he was given by the Secretary of State. I find it very   surprising that this legislation would apply to only five people. Perhaps he would read the entire letter in context.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I refer to question number 30953 and the reminder question 34236 asking when the Secretary of State was going to answer it. I asked if he would

“list the individuals who are on the run for terrorist offences after conviction.”

I went on to ask how many are wanted for questioning, but somehow the Secretary of State forgot to answer that point. Given the size of Northern Ireland, I find that rather interesting. The right hon. Gentleman named only five individuals who were convicted of terrorist offences and are unlawfully at large from prison in Northern Ireland: Kevin Barry Artt, Paul Brennan, Terrence Damian Kirby, Patrick Joseph McKenna—a very nice man if you ever have the chance to meet him—and Dermot Delaney. That is it.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is talking about post-conviction escapees, not on-the-runs under the legislation. Those people have been convicted of crimes and escaped from the jurisdiction; they are not serving a sentence because they escaped before the jurisdiction had the chance to imprison them before 10 April 1998. He is not talking about individuals who have not yet been charged for offences—people who we know could be charged if they were back in the Northern Ireland jurisdiction.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I understood that the term “on-the-run” defined someone who had been charged and convicted and then escaped.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman returns to the Library, looks at the briefing note and reads the Bill. On-the-runs, as he will find out, are individuals who suspected of crimes and whom the police or other forces may be able to charge for those crimes, but who are currently outside the Northern Ireland jurisdiction.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Order. Can I just say that this matter can be explored in greater depth under clause 3? I hope that we will not delay the debate too long on this issue.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for giving some clarity—the first bit of clarity that we have had so far. The second part of the Secretary of State’s answer does not make it clear that there is any understanding of how many people are on-the-runs. He says:

“The Police Service of Northern Ireland is currently conducting a review of outstanding warrants”

for offences connected with terrorism:

“This review has not yet been completed”,

and he cannot give me an answer. How do you know how many people the Bill will cover? [Interruption.] Does the Minister know? Does he wish to intervene?

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Order. The Minister was drawing attention to the unparliamentary way in which the hon. Gentleman was addressing the Committee.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I am sure that the Minister will forgive me, Sir Nicholas. I am new to this place. I have been doing something else, which was perhaps linked to this Bill.

In relation to amendment No. 111, I want clarification of the indirect and the offences the Bill covers. Does the phrase

“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.

cover someone who was carrying out extortion or an armed robbery and, when he is arrested, says, “Well, I did not know that the man who asked me to carry out the armed robbery was a member of a terrorist organisation, but can I be let off as well?” Will the Minister give us some clarity? As Opposition Members have pointed out, there are some other cases in which people have decided to come under the paramilitary cover of justice after the event. We are owed some clarity.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for tabling new clause 2. At least he is attempting to open up the debate on what exactly collusion is and the issue of actions that are carried out in the combating of terrorism. Collusion is an interesting thing; it is well played up in Northern Ireland by a certain section of the community in an attempt to destabilise not only the British Government, but any initiatives of the forces of law and order. We have yet to hear of any convictions for collusion. I agree with people on both sides of the Room that anyone who is found guilty of colluding with terrorists should face the full rigours of the law. No one here has said that that should not be the case. The hon. Gentleman has not tried to exclude collusion from the Bill; what is trying to exclude is those offences committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is not the same as collusion.

Let me give an example. In east Belfast in 1992 two Guardsmen by the names of Fisher and Wright shot dead a man who they genuinely believed was about to carry out an act of terrorism. They were subsequently tried and found guilty of murder in the courts. They were not colluding; they did not join up with the LVF, the UVF, the Red Hand Commando, the IRA or anyone else. They made, in my view, an error, but the courts felt that they had committed murder. So be it, but they did not collude in terrorism.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The court found that those two Guardsmen not only committed murder but committed perjury in the course of their trial. Peter McBride was no terrorist; he was an innocent young man.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

But it was not an act of terrorism.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) seemed to regard the act as one that was covered by the provision. He presented it as though those soldiers were acting to combat terrorism. That was the logical point that he was making.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

In fact, I was pointing out that whether they perjured themselves, robbed banks or whatever, those two Guardsmen were not colluding with terrorists. They committed an offence—the  courts said it was an offence—in the course of combating terrorism. I must tell the hon. Member for Foyle that they were fine Guardsmen, sent to Northern Ireland by a Government under extreme pressure. He is entitled to quote what the court said and he might be right that the offences happened, but those Guardsmen were not colluding with terrorists and cannot be equated to members of the UVF, LVF, IRA and all the other people who committed murder.

Mark Durkanrose—

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

No, I was trying to clarify the point about new clause 2 and the difference between collusion and offences that happen in the act of combating terrorism; they are not always one and the same. That is a good point to make in support of that argument.

It is also important that we reaffirm the anonymity of individuals who may come before the special tribunal. I object to the Bill completely, but I am not going to go down the course of saying that I object, so I am not going to support any amendments and I am not going to take part in the debate. I know that the Government are intent on pushing the Bill through, so we should try to get at least a Bill that protects some of the members of the security forces.

We should be under no illusion that the paramilitary organisations of all colours and persuasion often use courts to find their future targets.It does not matter whether they call themselves PIRA one week and the next they call themselves the Irish National Liberation Army or Continuity IRA, they have long memories. Many people would like to settle scores that go back to the 80s and 70s. If we do not have a strong affirmation in the Bill that if the security forces have to come within its remit, they will be able to remain anonymous, we will do a disservice to those members of the security forces who were sent by the Government to do the job. They did not rush over. They were sent to do a certain job. It is important that their identities are protected in the future.

The hon. Member for Foyle has yet to answer the question—

Mark Durkanrose—

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I will let the hon. Gentleman answer when I have finished the question. Members of a terrorist organisation could be covered by the Bill and let off, but members of the security forces could not. Does he prefer the security forces not to be covered by the Bill?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I am happy that the hon. Gentleman has given me the chance to answer the question. The soldiers in the case of Peter McBride were not acting to counter terrorism any more than the paratroopers who shot dead 13 people in Derry on Bloody Sunday were acting to counter terrorism. No one could accept that they were.

As for the collusion question, collusion with whom? The defence for security forces and intelligence force personnel working with agents inside paramilitary groups is that they are doing so to combat terrorism. The defence for those agents inside paramilitary groups who carried out crime after crime and were given licence to do so by their handlers was that they had to be allowed to do that for the greater cause of combating terrorism. Collusion has always justified itself by the pretence that it was combating terrorism. We must remember that the reference in the new clause to “efforts to combat terrorism” would not apply to security forces alone; it would apply to anyone who could claim that he was combating terrorism. People inside paramilitary organisations, who because they were agents were committing all sorts of crimes, could claim that. It is not only members of the security forces who could claim the benefit under the clause. People inside paramilitary organisations—and not only loyalist groups—could do so.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

Someone inside a terrorist organisation, whether or not an informer, can claim a get-out-of-jail-free card under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has yet to state whether or not he wants members of the security forces to be covered by the exemption, or does he want it only for the terrorists who did all the murdering in the vast majority of cases in Northern Ireland? Will he answer the question? He is yet to answer it.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Before the hon. Member for Foyle does so, I suggest that his answer is brief. Interventions and answers are becoming almost short speeches. I hope that we make some progress.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Again, I must say that I want the provision for no one. I do not know how many times that I have to make that point. I want the provision for no one. I will hold the Government to their original claim that the Bill is about on-the-runs who are outside the Northern Ireland jurisdiction. It is not a matter of terrorists or anyone else—I know some on-the-runs who I believe to be innocent. I will hold the Government to their claims not because I want the Bill or because I regard it as a priority, but because I want to test the dishonesty of the Government.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use between now and the end of our proceedings to answer the question.

Mark Hendrick (PPS (Rt Hon Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Preston, Labour)

He has answered it.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

He has not. The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not believe that the Bill should exist. Well, join the club. He has said that he wants to hold the Government to account. Here we have a new clause that, if we have to have the Bill, would allow the security forces to be given some protection. Either the hon. Gentleman supports it or not.

New clause 2 is important. Amendment No. 111 is designed simply to elicit some clarity from the Government. I hope that the Committee will support the new clause as I do.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. It seems contradictory to support amendment No. 111 as well as the new clause. New clause 2 could be interpreted by a court as—to use the line that we have been using—a get-out-of-jail-free card, since it includes a paragraph about the applicant being

“accused of an offence committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland”.

How does he square what seems to be a contradiction between the two amendments?

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

My understanding, although I may be corrected by the Minister, is that an offence committed in the course of combating terrorism may not be an offence related to terrorism. It might therefore be important to show a distinction in the Bill.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who was about to sit down but graciously took my intervention. May I just point out that the present Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which incorporated the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Hugh Orde, is on record as having said that he does not welcome the inclusion of police officers in the Bill? How would the hon. Gentleman try to persuade him that it is acceptable for them to be covered by it?

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

First, I have said that the Bill is not acceptable, but we must consider the Government’s track record of decisions about how to treat members of the security forces after legislation or agreements have been established. The two Scots Guardsmen that we discussed should, if matters are as the hon. Member for Foyle believes, continue to serve their sentence. They committed an offence—a crime. However, the Government packaged them up and dealt with them along with paramilitary releases. The point is at least to understand that if such people are included in the Bill the Government cannot wriggle out of their views on how the security forces should or should not be dealt with.

Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley, DUP)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be incomprehensible if the Bill was passed and the security forces were removed from it? Terrorists would get a get-out-of-jail-free card and some hon. Members would be quite content if in those circumstances, police officers and soldiers had to go through the full process of the law. That would show the twisted thinking that led to the discriminatory 50:50 recruitment policy for the police. People welcomed the Patten report and all that came with it, then all of a sudden they got a lot of other things, because they did not think straight.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I have very strong views on the existence of the Bill. It is best to leave the matter by saying that I sincerely hope that it will not succeed in either House. However, if it is to pass it is our duty as Members of Parliament to protect constituents who are members of the security forces from having their identity released—the Bill at present only gives  discretion to the tribunal and does not specify that their identity should be protected—and to ensure that those people receive treatment that is as fair as possible.

It would be completely unfair if, after the Bill was enacted, convicted mass murderers could walk round cocking a snook while members of the security forces underwent the full rigour of the judicial system. There would be one judicial system for terrorists and one for the others. Fairness is what helps to solve the injustice that caused the whole mess for decades and centuries in Northern Ireland. If we want to create more injustices we should go ahead with the Bill. We shall then find terrorists from another group of society and we will have to go through the whole procedure again. The Bill is a Bill too far. It will be unfair if one group of people is included in it and one group is outside it. I support the amendment and the new clause and hope that the Committee will do so too.

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, who has brought his experiences in Northern Ireland to bear on the debate.

This is an evil Bill. That is not my description of it. It is the description of the Minister who will steer it through another place. On “Hearts and Minds” last Thursday evening, he described the Bill as evil but said that it was none the less necessary. We face a series of conundrums, conflicts and contradictions in attempting in Committee to deal with a Bill that is described even by its promoter as evil. All Opposition Members and some Labour Members voted against it on Second Reading. I suspect that they will all vote against it on Third Reading too. Our job in Committee is to attempt, as far as possible, to blunt or dilute the main elements of the Bill and to make it less unacceptable than it was when it entered Committee. That is all that we can do, but doing that will undoubtedly raise certain issues which conflict with hon. Members real desire, which is to have the Bill defeated in its entirety.

Having said that, I recall when the Government entered into this shabby deal. The hon. Member for Foyle suggested that the Government have changed their position since they produced their proposals back in 2003. That is not the case. Back in 2003, my colleagues and I read the schedule that was produced—the annex to the joint declaration—and rightly divined its implications. If anyone looks at the annex today and compares it to the Bill, they will see that nothing in the Bill contradicts the statement that came out in 2003. Back then, the Government indicated that the legislation would set out who and which offences would qualify for the scheme. Now we see who and which, but because some hon. Members were focusing on a different element of the problem, they did not see what the Government might have had in mind for a later stage.

I have no doubt that the Government knew immediately that theirs would be an untenable position. Having committed the first evil—that of introducing legislation to ensure that people who had committed offences would not serve a day in prison for them—they knew it would be untenable for them to  argue that only terrorists should benefit from that, and that those in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre would not.

I do not share the position of the hon. Member for Foyle—that because the actual offence was not committed in the course of combating terrorism, it does not fit within new clause 2. The new clause refers to offences committed in the course of combating terrorism. The men in question were there to combat terrorism and, unquestionably, they made an error of judgement. The courts have determined that, but will anyone tell me that people who were there in order to combat terrorism and made an error of judgment, even if they attempted to cover up their involvement later, are in some way as bad or, in the case made by the hon. Member for Foyle, worse than the terrorists and should not benefit as the terrorists do? It would be absurd if the Government took that position.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I take the hon. Gentleman’s argument. However, it echoes our argument about the phrase

“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.

The hon. Gentleman is saying that any crime committed by a member of the security forces in Northern Ireland could be covered, because they were only there to combat terrorism, just as the phrase in parentheses means that any crime committed by anyone claiming to be a paramilitary would be covered. That is the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making—that the act does not have to be combating terrorism, just that the individuals in question were there to combat terrorism so any crime that they committed would be covered.

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

Let us be clear: the legislation talks about

“terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”,

so it must be linked to the terrorist situation. I have no doubt that the soldiers were standing on the road attempting to combat terrorism. Thinking that they were confronting terrorists, they took action without taking into account all of the issues that they should have, and the consequence was that an innocent person was killed, as the hon. Gentleman says. It was an offence, and was judged to be that by the court. My question is: why would the hon. Gentleman think that someone who makes a mistake like that should not benefit from this legislation, but that terrorists who set out to do someone to death in the most vile way possible should benefit? I do not think that that argument can be made to stand up.

The Government decided that the legislation is necessary and were therefore forced to go down the second path and provide that it should benefit members of the security forces. I do not agree with the argument about collusion. Anybody who has been involved in collusion falls into the category of being a supporter of a paramilitary organisation and should be treated in the same way as those who are supporters of terrorist organisations. The Minister knows that the House was unhappy about the equivalence being drawn between terrorists and members of the security forces. Unless he introduces separate legislation, I do  not think that he can address that in the way that Opposition Members want it to be dealt with. But if he is going to deal with it in the Bill, at least let there be a new provision, separate from the provision for terrorists. That is all that the new clause is intended to achieve; we want offences committed by those in the security forces to be separated out from terrorist offences.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly take a look at the wording of new clause 2? It states in respect of applications

“made to the certification commissioner for a certificate of eligibility”

that a certificate must be issued if

“the applicant is accused of an offence committed in the course of efforts to combat terrorism”.

That is drafted so widely that it would benefit not just members of the security forces, but paramilitary informants. The argument that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have tried to advance is that new clause 2 separates the terrorists from the security forces. As currently drafted, it does no such thing.

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

The hon. Lady’s problem is that she reads the new clause as if it were the whole Bill. If she looks at clause 3(3), she will see the conditions that will apply to the new clause.

Let me follow up the comments made by the hon. Member for Foyle in relation to the Superintendents Association. He questioned the conclusions that my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley reached in respect of the Superintendents Association letter. The letter expresses concern at

“The odious linkage, indeed equivalence, which had been drawn between terrorist subjects who have fled justice and serving/former police officers who, the Secretary of State and others have indicated, may also ‘benefit’ from the enactment of the draft legislation”.

It is very clear that the Superintendents Association was concerned about the equivalence. I do not pretend that the new clause would remove it entirely, but it does create further distance from the terrorist provisions in the legislation. On that basis, I urge hon. Members to support the new clause.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

May I bring to the hon. Gentleman’s attention the fact that, according to clause 3, in order to benefit an applicant must be capable of being arrested by the Police Service of Northern Ireland

“but for the fact that he was believed to be outside the United Kingdom”?

How many police officers does the hon. Gentleman imagine are on the run outside the jurisdiction of the UK? How many does he think could benefit from new clause 2?

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

The hon. Lady should spend a bit more time reading the legislation. It is not just for those who have gone outside the UK; it will benefit those who are not on the run at all. If she does nothing else, she should read the letter from the Superintendents Association. I will pass it on to her. The letter’s first point is that the legislation has been broadened to include those who were never on the run. Even the most cursory reading of the legislation would  have made it clear to the hon. Lady that the legislation goes well beyond those who are outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and that it would benefit those who have not been charged but who remain in Northern Ireland. It is, in fact, a get-out-of-jail card for anybody who before 10 April 1998 committed an offence that was related to terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland, not just for those who have fled the country.

In closing, may I say that offences of the kind that have been committed in Northern Ireland are so serious that the House should be very careful before it lends its hand to such a Bill? It would find itself in the most absurd position if it attempted to achieve an equivalence between those who are terrorists—who sought to destroy our society—and those in Northern Ireland who attempted to defend society, but made an error of judgment. The new clause, by providing a distinction between the two in separate provisions, would further distance the security forces from those who are the terrorists’ representatives. I urge the Committee to accept it.

Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey, Conservative)

I must ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that we have spent an hour and a half on this first small group of amendments. I urge him to recognise that while we on the Opposition Benches may have disagreements—indeed, considerable disagreements with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)—our real disagreement is with the Bill. These proposals force us to reflect on which criminal offences, often involving murder, will be given a certificate, or the so-called get-out-of-jail-free card, and which will not. As a new Member of the House, I find it offensive to have to make such a judgment in my first Standing Committee.

I ask the Minister for clarification of a point in new clause 2 and its implications. The Opposition have debated whether this measure should apply to members of the security forces who colluded with terrorist organisations. Will the Bill allow a certificate to be granted to members of the security forces who colluded with members of paramilitary or terrorist organisations? If so, is not that utterly insulting to members of the security forces who joined precisely because they want to uphold the law? Not only that—they are prepared to risk their lives in doing so.

That is why the Superintendents Association and members of the security forces are the strongest opponents of giving certificates to people who join the security forces and breach that fundamental tenet of what the security forces are all about. On the other hand—this is the absurdity of it—if the Bill will not offer certificates to members of the security forces who have colluded with paramilitaries, can the Minister explain why he is prepared to give certificates to the people who committed terrorist acts, but not to those members of the security forces who may have colluded with them?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

As the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) pointed out, this has been a very full debate on a range of issues, and I recognise the strength of feeling surrounding the context of the legislation. One does not have to be a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, as I have been since May, to know of the great concern over aspects of the Bill. I fully recognise the legitimacy of hon. Members from both sides of the Committee who oppose the Bill and the strength of feeling that they brought to their opposition on Second Reading. However, the legislation received a Second Reading by a majority of 48 and is now in Committee.

The purpose of consideration in Committee is to explore the issues in preparation for consideration on Report and Third Reading, and for an interesting passage through the House of Lords. I recognise the frustration that the hon. Member for South-West Surrey feels about his first Standing Committee sitting. I know that it exists, having served on far too many Committees and having spent five years in opposition, but that is the nature of the business we are in. During debates, I listen to what hon. Members have to say and explain the Government’s position. As we progress, I shall reflect on what has been said in Committee so that we can consider such matters.

The Government did not put this package together from ideas that were pulled from nowhere. We decided on it over time because we believe that it is in the long-term interests of peace in Northern Ireland. I accept that there is disagreement between members of the Committee, but the Government have felt strongly over time—since 2001 and with the Weston Park and Hillsborough discussions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle referred to—that this is an essential part of the political peace process to resolve some very difficult issues that arose prior to 10 April 1998 and the Good Friday agreement.

The base line is that there is little agreement, if any, with that premise from Opposition Members or from my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle and for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell). We are considering the Bill in Committee to deal with those matters, and I want to try to answer the questions that have been asked as best I can.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Given that the Minister has raised the matter, I hope it is in order to ask him what he believes would happen if the Bill did not go forward.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I have answered that question in the Chamber and outside. The Bill is part of the political peace process. Assurances have been given as part of the peace process to get us where we are, and they are part of the process of achieving peace and stability in the future. There are honest disagreements between us about that, but, although I have been in office only since May and many of the negotiations on such issues were undertaken before that, I know that this is an essential part of the political peace process.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The Minister refers to assurances. What will be assured, or will continue to be assured, by the Bill? What will be unassured without it?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I can only say what the Secretary of State has said before: the Bill is, in the Government’s view, part of the process that has got us to where we are today, and it is part of the process that will keep us in peaceful prosperity for the future.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Or else?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I recognise that there is a disagreement, but we believe strongly that we are where we are today, in part, because of the negotiations and discussions on this legislation.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I want to try to make progress and answer the points that were raised in debate, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.

Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sure he accepts that Parliament did not authorise any agreement to be made, nor can Parliament by bound by that agreement. As we are at the start of our discussions in Committee, I should say that I hope he will not use the fact that an agreement has been made as a reason for tabling any amendments that may be coming forward.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

Not at all. These amendments cover two particular points—the definition, essentially, of the issues before us, which is in clause 1, and the question whether security forces are included.

Lorely Burt (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland Affairs; Solihull, Liberal Democrat)

Will the Minister say to whom the assurances were given and what assurances were given?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

We are where we are today with the Bill because discussions have been undertaken as part of the peace process with political parties and with terrorist organisations. That issue is open and honest. If I may, I shall proceed with the debate.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

The Minister mentions discussions with political parties, but to which political parties or party were the assurances given and what assurances were given? No assurances were given to my party, and it seems that the rest of the parties represented here received no assurances, so which political parties and which assurances?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in 2003, proposals were published as part of the Weston Park/Hillsborough agreement, which suggested that this issue was outstanding, needed to be addressed and dealt with people on the run and offences committed before 10 April 1998. We need to address this matter.

I know that there are honest disagreements among Members about that, but the Government believe that this has been an essential part of getting us where we are today and will be an essential part of building on the stability of the peace for the future. There are disagreements with the Government on that, but that is the situation we have reached.

It is important that we deal with the purposes of the amendments. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury tabled amendment No. 111, which would remove the words in brackets in clause 1(1)(a). The purpose of the phrase that we put in brackets is to ensure clarity in respect of the meaning of “connection with terrorism”.

The Government believe—this is the purpose—that the offences covered and committed in relation to clause 1, when taken together with the conditions in clause 3, which narrow the scheme considerably, reflect scheduled offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and allow for consideration of those offences under this legislation. Clause 1 is intended to identify offences. The key point that we must reflect on today is the question of offences.

Clause 1 defines the offences committed in the context of what used to be called the emergency situation in Northern Ireland and how they should be covered. Clause 1 reflects closely the wording of the scheduled offences under the 2000 Act; that is why it is reflected in the way it is, including the situation with regard to words in brackets.

There has been discussion of what the offences will cover. I hope to clarify things for the Committee: essentially, the 2000 Act and the scheduled offences for that Act, which lists a range of offences that are before the Committee today, allow for that Act to give the scheduled offences that are committed and are covered by this legislation. It also covers the question of the security forces. The phraseology that we have used in the Bill allows for the consideration of offences—pre-10 April 1998—that were committed in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland with regard to the security forces.

I do not believe—I hope this clarifies things for the Committee—that incidents of the sort mentioned by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) are necessarily covered by this measure. The question before the Committee is the 2000 Act and the scheduled offences that relate to it. Those scheduled offences are very clear, detailed, subject to review by the Attorney-General and brought forward under that Act, so they cover specific offences of terrorism, murder and involvement in activities along those lines. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the clarification he seeks. The provisions will not cover offences outside what is currently scheduled by the 2000 Act.

Lembit öpikrose—

Sammy Wilsonrose—

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I am not surprised that the hon. Member for East Antrim wants to intervene as well. I understand what the Minister would like this aspect of the legislation to do, but nothing in clause 3 and nothing in what he has said assures me that that is what the legislation will do. Exactly where in the Bill, or within the interrelationship with the 2000 Act, are   offences of the sort outlined by the hon. Member for East Antrim excluded in terms of the licensing provisions?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

The basis of the legislation and its wording is the 2000 Act. The definition in the legislation is the same as in relation to the 2000 Act. It will be for the certification commissioner to determine whether the offence is relevant to the scheme, but he will do so based on the similar tests that the Attorney-General currently applies in establishing what the 2000 Act currently refers to. I hope to assure the hon. Gentleman that the wording in clause 1 covers the 2000 Act schedule and that the offences within that relate to terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland as currently defined.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Does the Minister accept that, through the courts in Northern Ireland, under scheduled offences under the 2000 Act, people have been tried and found guilty of extortion, robbery, torture and the range of offences that I have described? In answer to him, that Act covers those activities, so the Bill will too.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

Again, I hope that I can assure the hon. Gentleman—I may not succeed—that the certification commissioner will have to make a judgment based on what he determines is defined as “terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland” as detailed under the 2000 Act.

The certification commissioner will take a decision on each case. For example, a bank robbery might be determined as being part of terrorism, because it was linked to funding for a terrorist activity. However, the decision will be made by the commissioner, along the same lines as the decision currently that is taken by the Attorney-General as to whether a matter falls under 2000 Act.

Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey, Conservative)

If the Minister’s assurances are correct, why does he not just accept the amendment?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I have looked at the wording in the legislation, as have the lawyers in the Department, to ensure that the points that we want to deal with are covered. Our assessment, which may be different from that of the hon. Gentleman, is that the current wording covers the term

“terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”

to ensure that it is dealt with in parallel to the 2000 Act definition under “Scheduled offences”.

Several hon. Membersrose—

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I will give way in a moment.

The wording in the Bill meets the objectives of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. That is a matter for discussion and debate. However, the tight definition of

“terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”

in the text covers that point and fits with the current definition in the 2000 Act.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Does the Minister accept that the courts and the police usually judge whether an act falls under the 2000 Act when bringing such matters to court? First, they decide whether the people involved are members of a terrorist organisation and whether a crime has been claimed by such an organisation. If the court makes that judgment when deciding whether an offence is a terrorist offence, why would a commissioner make a different judgment? Secondly, since all the acts that I have described would fall under the current legislation, why would the commissioner make a different judgment?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman—there may be an area of disagreement here—is that the certification commissioner will base his judgment on the wording of the 2000 Act, in relation to the schedule. He will base his judgment on what has been a terrorist act in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland, which will be determined in the same way as the Attorney-General currently undertakes the same assessment in relation to legislation. That is the nature of the phraseology and we believe that it covers the points that have been mentioned.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way. These are important points and I am pleased that we can consider them in detail.

I am among a small number of hon. Members in the room who happened to be involved in passing the 2000 Act. There is nothing in that Act that would exclude from the licensing procedures crimes of the sort described by the hon. Member for East Antrim.

I understand the Minister’s difficulty, because he was not directly involved in the 2000 Act, but I feel that he is busking to an extent. It would be more honest, surely, for him to accept that the distasteful crimes described by the hon. Member for East Antrim would be eligible for licence. If I am wrong about that, he needs to explain specifically why, or, alternatively, modify his advice to the Committee.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

As I have already said, the decision on the schedule of offences will lie with the certification commissioner, and we will deal with that under later clauses. However, the definition of an offence is similar to that of a scheduled offence under the 2000 Act and decisions about whether an offence is a scheduled offence are currently taken by the Attorney-General. He does that every day of the week in relation to offences under that Act.

We are not bringing forward a new concept; this concept has been parallel to the 2000 Act. I cannot prejudge the entirety of the nature of the offences that come before the certification commissioner, but the definitive aspect is what he considers to be an offence under the 2000 Act and the wording of the schedule.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

That is exactly my point. Going through that procedure, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that the kind of crimes described by the hon. Member for East Antrim would leave an individual who had committed them eligible for a licence. The question, which is now important in the debate, is this; why will not the Minister express a hope   that they would be excluded, when any of us who were involved in the 2000 legislation know as pretty close to fact that they would be included? I am asking him to clarify what facts he has, which I do not have, that would cause me to alter my view.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman, in an attempt to be helpful, is that the acts described under the 2000 Act are currently subject to a decision by the Attorney-General as to whether they are eligible. The certification commissioner will have exactly the same powers and will make exactly the same judgments. Some of the instances that have been referred to may potentially be covered by the Act, or they may not. The decision ultimately will be with the certification commissioner, based on interpretation, as currently defined by the 2000 Act. That covers the points made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, although I recognise that he may seek further clarification.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The Minister has now made over a dozen references—that is only since I started counting them—to the 2000 Act. He said that this Bill uses language that is consistent with it, that it uses language that includes those offences and that it includes language that is similar. Earlier, he said that at no point does the Bill confine itself to offences that strictly and solely fall under the 2000 Act. That goes back to the phrase in parenthesis—

“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.

The Minister is still not answering that question, and the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim still stands. The Bill, as drafted, will be anything that anyone wants to claim benefits for.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

It will not, because it will be for the certification commissioner to determine whether the offence is relevant to the application, on the basis of the same test that is currently undertaken by the Attorney-General, as related to schedule 9 of the 2000 Act. That procedure is exactly the same as is undertaken now daily by the Attorney-General with the cases that are brought before him.

Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

I seek further clarification. The Minister refers to paragraph 9 of schedule 9 of the 2000 Act, but does not that refer only to escape offences?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

No.

Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

That is what the Bill says.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

That is not the 2000 Act.

Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

With respect to the Minister, this Act is what will be applied. This is the Act that the certification commissioner will look at if and when—in the unfortunate circumstances—it becomes an Act. It refers to an offence specified in paragraph 9 of schedule 9 of the 2000 Act as “escape offences”, not to all offences.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

No, that is not the position. The test that will be applied by the certification commissioner relates to schedule 9 of the 2000 Act. The   commissioner will be able to assess, as the Attorney-General does now with cases before him, the basis on which he wishes to allow individuals to participate in the scheme. The scheme will cover, as we have said, offences connected with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland. That brings us on to the second point, which relates to the new clause 2, about the security forces in the legislation. The Government have taken the view that it is not practical, feasible or desirable, recognising the distaste that hon. Members feel for the Bill as a whole, for the Government to table legislation—

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

I am not convinced by the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who I think is absolutely right. Clause 1(1)(a), it refers to what the Committee has been considering in relation to amendment No. 111. However, it is clause 1(1)(b), which is defined by clause 1(2), that refers to the 2000 Act. There is no link between clause 1(1)(a) and the Terrorism Act 2000.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

Perhaps in a moment I can reflect on that.

Huw Irranca-Davies (PPS (Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Ogmore, Labour)

Perhaps my hon. Friend will refer to clause 19(1) under which

“‘terrorism’ has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000”.

Does not that clarify the matter?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I am advised that clause 1(1)(a) does not make reference to the Terrorism Act but that the definition is basically the same as for the scheduled offences. The wording is exactly the same. I repeat that the certification commissioner’s role in the deliberation over whether an offence has been committed, relevant to the Bill, under schedule 1, shares the same basis as the consideration by the Attorney-General of the current Terrorism Act.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

The Minister says that the definition in clause 1(1)(a) is the same as the definition in paragraph 9 of schedule 9 to the Terrorism Act 2000. However, it is not. The definition in clause 1(1)(a) is

“terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland (whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.

I do not think that that is a definition from the Terrorism Act 2000.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

May I again confirm to the Committee that clause 1(1)(a) is the same definition as that for scheduled offences under the Terrorism Act 2000?

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

It is not.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

We have a disagreement on this.

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

The Minister will have to accept that it cannot be the same definition, because clause 1(1)(a) is self-defined. It is defined in the Bill and it will be the definition in the Bill that the courts will consider.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I see that I am not satisfying the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members today. That is the nature of the business.

Huw Irranca-Davies (PPS (Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Ogmore, Labour)

Will the Minister give way?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

In a moment. Let me complete my answer.

The Government’s position on clause 1, in relation to Northern Ireland, terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland, is that it is the same as the current definition in the Terrorism Act 2000. The offences covered by clause 1 of the Bill will be the offences that are currently covered by the Terrorism Act 2000, and the scheduled offences, accordingly. That is the legal advice on the Bill. The purpose is to cover the purposes of the 2000 Act and to have the same definition.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Perhaps I am missing something. Will the Minister point out where, in clause 1(1)(a), the Terrorism Act is even mentioned, let alone the definition in the Terrorism Act? The reference in subsection (2), of course, is to an escape offence. Will the Minister spell it out for me and other members of the Committee?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

Clause 1 reflects what is categorised as a scheduled offence under the Terrorism Act 2000. Despite different interpretations, that is what the clause does, in the Government’s assessment of the 2000 Act and scheduled offences.

Huw Irranca-Davies (PPS (Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Ogmore, Labour)

Perhaps I was not quite specific enough previously about cross-referencing clause 1 to clause 19, on interpretation of the Bill. The latter   clause states clearly that “terrorism” has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000. That seems quite clear.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I give way to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.

Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

The Minister is being extremely accommodating. It will not have escaped your attention, Sir Nicholas, that in moving the amendment I made the shortest speech of all that have been made this morning, but I did refer to the definition of terrorism under the 2000 Act. We accept that as far as it goes, but the 2000 Act does not, as far as I can see, include the phrase

“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.

That is the point of the amendment. The clause refers specifically to the 2000 Act, but paragraph 9 of schedule 9 to that Act refers to prison offences, under the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953, not to the whole lot. That is very specific.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee is that currently, when the Attorney-General—