Clause 1 - Offences to which the Act applies
Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill
11:00 am
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.