Clause 1 - Offences to which the Act applies
Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill
4:30 pm
David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)
Our discussion this morning centred on the scope of clause 1 and questions about the potential inclusion of members of the security forces if they have committed relevant offences in relation to new clause 2 and clause 1. To clarify the position, I can only repeat what I said this morning, but I hope that I can reassure hon. Members. What I said about the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) remains the case. During this morning’s sitting we debated the link between clause 1 and the list of offences contained in schedule 9 to the Terrorism Act 2000, commonly referred to as scheduled offences. In drafting the Bill, the Government took care to ensure that the definition in clause 1(1)(a) was deliberately and carefully formulated to cover the same offences as those contained in the defined offences in schedule 9 to the 2000 Act.
Those in the Committee who are familiar with that Act—the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) was present during the deliberations on it—will know the rationale behind the schedule. Schedule 9 lists offences committed where there is a possibility, to use the old parlance, that they were undertaken in connection with the emergency in Northern Ireland. For ease of reference, I have managed to secure a copy of the 2000 Act. The substantive offences in schedule 9 include murder, manslaughter, riot, kidnapping, false imprisonment and a range of other offences.
Procedurally, as hon. Members will know, when an individual is charged with a scheduled offence under the Act, the Attorney-General considers whether the offence has been committed in connection with terrorism in Northern Ireland. In doing so, the Attorney-General decides whether the individual should be tried by a jury for an ordinary offence of murder, if I can call it that, such as one committed through domestic violence, or whether the offence of murder is connected to terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland in the way that I described before lunch. If the latter, the case is referred to the Diplock court and considered as a scheduled offence under the Terrorism Act. The purpose of clause 1(1)(a) is to replicate the effect of that legislation.
The Attorney-General considers whether the offence was committed in connection with the emergency in Northern Ireland and clause 1 is worded in exactly the same way to capture the same offences as those that would be tried as scheduled offences. We do not use the terms “scheduled” or “non-scheduled” offences, because it has proved difficult to draft in those terms, but I assure hon. Members that the effect of clause 1(1)(a) is to ensure that schedule 9 will operate, with the certification commissioner having the same types of powers as the Attorney-General to determine whether offences are scheduled offences. Under later clauses, the certification commissioner will consider whether the offence is one to which the Bill applies—that is, whether it has been committed in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland.
The words in clause 1(1)(a) that are in brackets are intended to express as clearly as possible that offences committed in connection with terrorism will include, for the purposes of the Bill, offences committed in the course of combating terrorism. That takes me on to new clause 2 and the second part of the impact of the legislation.