Clause 2 - Certification commissioner
Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill
1:00 pm
Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)
Thank you, Mr. Taylor. We are unanimously delighted to sit under your chairmanship this afternoon, and we welcome you to this exciting Committee. It is exciting because this is the first time that we have been able to put the Minister on his mettle in defending, line by line, the clauses of this appalling legislation. I am sorry that he finds himself a little exasperated because we have made such little progress, but this is all in the interests of better justice in Northern Ireland. I will push amendments Nos. 229 and 230 to Divisions, because it is enormously important that he and the Government are consistent in their policy in Northern Ireland.
I find the Minister’s justification for refusing to accept the amendments extraordinary. I say that because he referred to at least two different sets of arguments. One is that this is an excepted matter. The term “excepted” is born out of the legislation that brought about Northern Ireland—the Government of Ireland Act 1920, under which there are reserved matters at Westminster, devolved matters and excepted matters. Excepted matters are limited; they include defence and taxation.
The Minister sought to persuade the Committee that because the certification commissioner will deal with those who might have committed acts of terrorism, this is an excepted matter. That cannot be the case and I need him to explain the policy to us. I again refer him to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which was taken through the House by his Government and his colleagues. Section 2 says that the
“First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly”
may perform a certain function. Sections 3 and 4 include exactly the same provision in relation to other functions.
In the Committee that considered that legislation, I asked the Northern Ireland Office Minister responsible for those matters the question this Minister has posed today: if the First and Deputy First Ministers do not agree, one would have a veto over progress, so what would happen? The Northern Ireland Office Minister then responsible for those matters replied:
“Our stock answer would be that we are not planning for failure”.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 2002; c. 68.]
At every juncture, the Government wrote it into the legislation that the First and Deputy First Ministers must act jointly on a range of judicial appointments. Those judges will deal with terrorist offences—for example, where Diplock courts are involved. What do such courts deal with apart from those who are accused of the most heinous crimes, which are scheduled offences? They deal with terrorism. The certification commissioner can be in no different category.
The Minister needs to explain why, in 2002, Government policy was that the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly should have such a significant role in judicial matters, but that, on this occasion, the situation involving the certification commissioner, who will sit only in Northern Ireland and will have an exclusively Northern Ireland remit, is different. Why do the Government wish to reject this amendment? Are they preparing for failure in restoring the institutions?