Clause 1 - Offences to which the Act applies
Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill
5:15 pm
Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Northern Ireland; Tewkesbury, Conservative)
We have had a long debate about this, but it is important because it defines what kind of offence is covered by the Bill. With all due respect to the Minister—I mean that sincerely—I am not satisfied with his explanation. I have two objections. First, the drafting of clause 1(1)(a) is very poor. It says
“in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland (whether committed for terrorist purposes or not).”
The bit in brackets presumably just relates to the affairs of Northern Ireland, because terrorism cannot be for “terrorist purposes or not”. If it is both terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland, perhaps they should have been dealt with in separate subsections. It does not read correctly as it is.
We heard earlier that the phrase
“(whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”
does not appear in the Terrorism Act 2000. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, the definition of terrorism in that Act is pretty comprehensive and possibly too wide. When I first spoke on the subject some hours ago, I said that terrorism is defined quite widely in the 2000 Act, and my concern was that the phrase in clause 1(1)(a) makes it much wider, particularly given the extra activities that paramilitary organisations are now undertaking. The parameters are getting wider and I am concerned that the commissioner will be able to issue certificates for a wider range of offences than Parliament intended. That is my second objection.
The Minister spoke of interpretation. I am not a lawyer, but I am aware that there are different rules for interpreting Acts of Parliament, including the mischief rule, the golden rule, and the literal rule. How can we be sure which of those will be adopted by the commissioner? We are talking not about a court but about a commissioner. I have deep concerns about that.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire wondered whether the amendment was consistent with the new clause tabled by the Democratic Unionist party. I think it is, although they focus on slightly separate issues. The amendment would confine the provision to terrorist acts, whereas the new clause raises the separate question of the security forces. I do not see that the two are contradictory. If the security forces are involved in suppressing terrorism, I see no inconsistency with the amendment.
I do not want to take any more of the Committee’s time. We have had a long debate—necessarily so. I am not convinced by the Minister’s response. Like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I do not blame the Minister. I am convinced that he has been let down by the advice that he has received. I do not like to criticise people who cannot answer back, but we have a job to do. I have expressed my feelings and I shall press the amendment to a Division.