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

I beg to move amendment No. 112, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 113, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out

‘, and have had since before 1st November 2005,’.

Amendment No. 232, in clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out ‘1st November 2005’ and insert ‘10th April 2004’.

Amendment No. 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert

‘and

(iii)that the applicant has not been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism since 10th April 1998.’.

Amendment No. 233, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, after ‘that’, insert

‘in the opinion of a senior police officer’.

Amendment No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, leave out ‘does not support’ and insert

‘has not at any time supported an organisation which is currently’.

Amendment No. 49, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

‘(aa)that that Commission established under section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (the commission) has reported that any organisation with which the applicant was associated has completed the decommissioning of its weapons and all other terrorist property;’.

Amendment No. 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, after ‘that’, insert

‘, in the view of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,’.

Amendment No. 50, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert

‘, or any other serious crime,’.

Amendment No. 235, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert

‘or any other “specified offences” as set out in Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003’.

Amendment No. 8, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, leave out

‘for a term of five years or more’.

Amendment No. 9, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(e)that the Police Service of Northern Ireland believes that he will not pose a danger to the public.’.

Amendment No. 10, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(e)that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which currently causes, by threat against a person or persons, such person or persons to leave Northern Ireland or to be in fear of returning to Northern Ireland.’.

Amendment No. 11, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(e)that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which has been involved in any paramilitary, criminal or illegal activity since 1st December 2005.’.

Amendment No. 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(e)that the applicant is not suspected of, or charged with or convicted of, an offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (torture).’.

Amendment No. 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(e)that the applicant has not at any time supported an organisation which the Independent Monitoring Commission cannot certify is maintaining a complete cessation of paramilitary and criminal activity.’.

Amendment No. 51, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(e)that the Independent Monitoring Commission has stated in at least its two most recent reports that any organisation with which he was associated has not engaged in any serious criminal activity.’.

Amendment No. 54, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(e)that the Independent Monitoring Commission has stated in at least its two most recent reports that any organisation with which he was associated has—

(i)ceased the practice of exiling; and

(ii)specifically and credibly stated that those who have been exiled from their homes are free to return without fear of intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress to themselves or their family.’.

Amendment No. 115, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(e)that the applicant would not, in the opinion of a senior member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, be a danger to the public;

(f)that the applicant has not been engaged, or is likely to be engaged, in the indirect incitement or glorification of acts of terrorism;

(g)that the applicant is not concerned or likely to be concerned in any acts of criminality.’.

Amendment No. 169, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(e)that the applicant in his application has disclosed all the offences committed by him to which this Act applies.’.

Amendment No. 48, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(3A)In making an application under subsection (1), the applicant must state—

(a)all offences he wishes to have considered under the provisions of this Act;

(b)the names of any organisations with which he was associated in the commission of those offences; and

(c)that he does not support any organisation that is proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 nor supports any acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.’.

Amendment No. 55, in clause 3, page 2, line 48, at end insert—

‘(d)the names of any organisations stated under subsection (3A)’.

Amendment No. 116, in clause 3, page 3, line 9, at end insert—

‘(7A)Before submitting a statement under subsection (2) (a) a senior member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland must consult and have regard to the views of—

(a)the Independent Monitoring Commission,

(b)the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner, and

(c)the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.’.

New clause 20—Entitlement to certificate and licence: further provisions—

‘(1)If a person who is on licence under section 9 is convicted of an offence which (or the conduct constituting which) might have been specified in a certificate of eligibility, but which was not specified in such a certificate, the Secretary of State shall revoke the person’s licence.

(2)Where a person has been granted a certificate of eligibility in which certain conduct, or certain offences, are specified, and is on licence, no further certificate may be granted to that person in respect of any other offences.’.

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

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 112, 113, 115 and 116. Amendment No. 112 refers to the awarding of a certificate. It seeks to change “must award a certificate” to “may award a certificate”, which would give the commissioner a little flexibility as to whether to award that certificate to an applicant. The word “may” would be less prescriptive and would allow for greater discretion on the part of the commissioner than “must”, which makes the granting of a certificate binding in all circumstances if the applicant appears to qualify. Although the requirement would appear to have been met by the applicant, the commissioner should have some flexibility, especially as there is already an appeals procedure, which is detailed in clause 12. The amendment seeks to introduce that flexibility.

Amendment No. 113 relates to subsection (2)(a)(i) which refers to an applicant’s qualifying for a certificate if members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland have,

“and have had since before 1 November 2005, reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant to be guilty of an offence”

to which the Bill applies, and if he

“would have been arrested for that offence before that date but for the fact that he was believed to be outside the United Kingdom”.

The reason for the amendment is that we were wondering why that date was chosen. What is significant about it? We do not believe in the Bill at all, but if it is to be introduced, it should have a sunset clause and I shall propose six months in a later amendment. If we are to go down this road at all it seems to us that the eligibility should run from the end date, rather than the arbitrary date of 1 November. Can the Minister explain why any date, and that date in particular, should have been chosen?

Amendment No. 115 would add to the list of conditions that have to be fulfilled before the applicant can be granted a licence. In addition to those in the Bill I propose that applicants should be granted a certificate only if they would not, in the opinion of a senior member of the PSNI, be a danger to the public, would not be engaged or likely to be engaged in the indirect incitement or glorification of acts of terrorism and would not be likely to be concerned in any aspects of criminality.

I shall briefly take each point in turn. It must surely be right that the applicant should not be seen by the police as a danger to the public. Indeed, clause 10 accepts that the licence should be awarded only if, in   the case of those serving life sentences, they are not seen as a danger to the public. Why is there that difference?

A number of processes are running in parallel, as I said on Second Reading. The emergency provisions are due to come to an end in 2007 or, at the latest, 2008. The Assembly elections are due in 2007 and the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will probably be up and running by 2007 in the Minister’s estimation. As the Bill has the potential to return a number of people who have been a menace to the streets of Northern Ireland back to those streets at a time when the emergency provisions could have been scrapped, we risk destabilising the streets if we are not careful. I do not think that that would be the Government’s intention.

Is it not important that the police do not see such people as a danger to members of the public, especially those whom they have previously terrorised? It seems a minimal provision and is consistent with the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, where the fourth condition to be satisfied before being eligible for release is that the person would not be a danger to the public.

I would not propose the incitement and glorification amendment other than for the sake of consistency with the Bills recently introduced by the Government. I would have thought that they would accept the amendment with open arms. After all, one terrorist is as bad as another. It is surely wrong to prohibit members of al-Qaeda from glorifying terrorism on the mainland while allowing IRA or UVF supporters to carry out the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We all said in early stages of this Bill and the Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill, which completed its passage through the Commons last week, that we want to see Northern Ireland returned to normality. Normality also means commonality in this respect, so in order to be keeping with other terrorist legislation perhaps it is important to prohibit inciting and glorifying terrorism in Northern Ireland.

The third aspect of the amendment is designed to ensure that the applicant is not and does not become engaged in criminality. We have heard over many years in this House and outside that Northern Ireland has become a different place since the Belfast agreement and that paramilitary activity has been reduced, as have murders and other forms of paramilitary violence. However, from the outset I would say that far too much paramilitary violence has continued since that agreement. I would also draw the Committee’s attention to the last IMC report, which states that the UVF remains “active, violent and ruthless”, that there are unreported acts of intimidation that are far more numerous than acts of violence and that the criminals are flexible and resilient.

The nature of the violence may have changed, but the mafia-style criminality remains. It is right that it cannot be allowed to continue on either side of the divide. There can be little doubt that republicans are involved in criminality, whether that is through protection rackets, bank robberies, extortion or whatever. There is certainly no doubt in my mind that   the so-called loyalist paramilitaries are deeply involved, too. On that basis, it is difficult to see how the amendment can be resisted. For Northern Ireland to return to normality, surely those re-entering society cannot be involved in any form of criminality but must have truly repented their sins and pledged to live decently and honestly in the future. Involvement in criminality can form no part of their future or that of Northern Ireland.

Finally, I shall address amendment No. 116. The Bill requires a senior police officer to write to the commissioner to state that he believes that an applicant qualifies to be dealt with under the scheme. The amendment would require the officer to consult the IMC, the Northern Ireland victims commissioner and the NIHRC before making that statement. The purpose of the amendment is, again, to keep the victim at the heart of the process, and is totally consistent with the other amendments that we have tabled.

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

There is a significant element of commonality between the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and those to which I speak, which are amendments Nos. 3, and 6 to 13.

Amendment No. 3 would ensure that no one who has been involved in terrorism since 1998 can benefit from the scheme. According to the Government, the purpose of the scheme is to resolve and put a line under the past, which is why they are prepared to give what amounts to an amnesty for pre-1998 offences. The very fact that offences took place after that date indicates that matters are not in the past as far as the offenders are concerned—that even after the Belfast Agreement, they were still doing what they do best. Clearly, such people should not benefit from the scheme. Clean hands post-1998 is not an unreasonable standard to expect people to meet. Under the Bill, effectively, crimes post-1998 are not eligible for benefit from either the scheme or the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, so criminals post-1998 should not be eligible either.

The purpose of amendment No. 6—there is some similarity between amendments Nos. 6 and 11—is to link the applicant’s ability to benefit from the scheme to the behaviour of the paramilitary organisation for which they committed the offence, rather than the applicant’s—unprovable—thoughts. Applicants will benefit from the provisions of this legislation because of the status and bargaining power of the paramilitary organisation and should therefore be accountable for the subsequent acts of the organisation.

There are advantages to our proposal from the Government’s point of view. It would provide a powerful incentive for organisations not to get involved in paramilitary, criminal or terrorist activity, and it will be difficult to link an individual with a particular offence or behaviour. The scheme is being introduced because the paramilitary organisation did a deal with the Government, so its continuation should depend on it keeping its part of that deal. Without such a link, terrorists could permanently benefit from a short-term so-called peace.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that language used in clause 6 is not replicated in clause 3. Clause 6 uses the wording

“the person has at any time supported an organisation that ... is currently a specified organisation.”

It is precisely the Government’s language there that we are attempting to insert into clause 3, as they would never be able to prove

“that the applicant does not support a specified organisation”

which is the wording in clause 3. It is much easier to make an assessment of the organisation than of the individual. I urge the Government to consider that matter, and the Committee to vote accordingly.

People should not be able to benefit if the organisation with which they are associated still engages in the same activities as in the past. Why on earth would we want to allow people to apply for and get a certificate if the organisation of which they have been a part, and on whose behalf they have committed acts of terrorism, is still out there and carrying out that kind of activity? Under clause 3, they can do that. If the Government had used the same language as in clause 6, they could not; the activities of the organisation would have applied against the person. If the Bill is an attempt to draw a line under the past, any activity that is demonstrably not in the past should be taken into account. I remind the Minister that the Government made this mistake in 1998; I trust that they will not make the same mistake again on this occasion.

The purpose of amendment No. 7 is to make the condition that it addresses a police judgment, rather than a judgment of the Government or a Government appointee. No person or organisation would be better placed than the police to determine that an applicant

“is not concerned or likely to be concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

It adds to the Bill a recognition that the best body to make that judgment is the PSNI, rather than the Government or a Government appointee. I trust that that is such common sense that even the Government might be able to take it on board.

With amendment No. 9, we begin to list a number of conditions that the commissioner must meet in respect of issuing a certificate. The only previous requirements that are laid down in the legislation could, in effect, be met by anybody, no matter what the circumstances prevailing were. Amendments Nos. 9 to 13 make a number of further requirements.

Amendment No. 9 would ensure that people who are a danger to the public do not benefit from the scheme. Elsewhere in the Bill, the Government have that as a requirement. It seems to me to be such a natural factor in the current context that I am surprised that the Government might be considering that somebody who is a danger to the public should benefit from the scheme. I would have thought that the Government would not have to stretch too far to accept the principle of the amendment. It would be an extraordinary position for the Government to adopt if they recognised that somebody was a danger to the public but they also ensured that they did not spend a   day in prison for their crimes. Clearly, the Government must make this a condition in respect of the issuing of eligibility certificates.

Amendment No. 10 is important, and I am sure that the Committee will want to study it in some detail. It is the exiles amendment. It would make sure that there is a linkage between any organisation benefiting from this scheme and how it treats those whom it has, through fear, exiled and whom it does not allow to return to Northern Ireland. Why should people who have committed the most heinous crimes be allowed by the Government to return to Northern Ireland, when the organisation of which they are a part will not allow those who have stood in their way to return to Northern Ireland? It is unacceptable for such applicants to benefit from the scheme in such circumstances when people still do not feel able to return home. A real test of the true nature of the state of normality or peace is whether those who have been exiled are allowed to return home, and feel that they can do so.

The purpose of our amendment is to link clearly the attitude of organisations to exiles and the extent to which their members who have committed offences can benefit from the provisions of the Bill. Without this change there can be no justification for allowing terrorists to return home when their victims cannot. It would be absurd to allow those who have fled a proper and legal judicial system to return home free of the normal legal system, when those who have been exiled as a result of a paramilitary style of justice are not safe to return.

Amendment No. 12 deals with torture and breaches of the European convention on human rights. I touched on that matter on Second Reading. I return to it because it is vital that the Government address it. If they do not do so in this Committee, on Report or in another House, it will be addressed in the courts. They can be certain about that.

This is a responsibility that the Government cannot dodge. They are bound by conventions. They have signed up to conventions, for instance the United Nations convention against torture, article 4 of which states:

“Each state party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.”

The United Kingdom is one such state party. So it is not just a case of having brought somebody before a quasi-judicial panel; it is a requirement to have the offences punished and for there to be penalties as a result of such a court case.

The Government have signed up to that convention and the European convention on human rights, article 3 of which, on the prohibition of torture, states:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 13 makes it clear that:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

It is clear from both conventions that the Government have signed up to a requirement not only not to be involved in torture themselves, but to punish   anybody who is and to ensure that penalties arise. That is the undertaking that the Government have given in those conventions. They will have to face up to their duties under those conventions and ensure that no one who has committed torture or who has killed someone following torture is allowed to benefit from this legislation. The commissioner, at the first stage of the process, should weed out any such cases and ensure that the people involved do not benefit. If they were to benefit, the Government would be in violation of their commitments given under those conventions.

The purpose of amendment No. 13 is to introduce a role for the IMC. By and large, in the past, the Government have examined their legislative responsibility. However, when it comes to whether an organisation is still involved in terrorist activity, the Secretary of State says publicly, “Well, I have to make a judgment in the round”—in some cases even going before the courts to do so. I think that we can remember the case fairly well where the Minister, even though there had been acts of terrorism, was prepared to say, “In the round, I have to accept that the ceasefire still holds”.

The reality is that the Government take their decisions for political reasons. They set up, and gave their support to, the IMC. They gave it an important role: to assess and to monitor the activities of paramilitary organisations. As a result of IMC reports the Government have imposed sanctions on various paramilitary organisations. Even within the political process, the Government place great emphasis on its reports.

How many times have we heard during the past few weeks the importance of the IMC report next January? The Government are inclined to believe that a good IMC report would indicate that peace and normality exist in Northern Ireland and that that should be the test. The Government set the test of whether there is normality by the judgment of the IMC. What we are saying, under the amendment, is so be it. We would rather have the IMC’s judgment on such matters than the Government’s; the IMC would certainly be much more independent.

As the provisions are exceptional, it would not be unreasonable to disqualify applicants on the basis that the organisation with which they were associated was continuing to engage in illegal activity. In my view, the ideal body to make such a judgment would be the IMC. The Minister may well respond that thus far the IMC’s role has been confined to making recommendations, and that what we are suggesting is to give it a decision-making role. That is no bad thing; it would probably make better decisions than the Government, as far as such matters are concerned. Certainly, if the Government had taken the IMC’s recommendations, we might be in a better position today. It has made recommendations that the Government have not been prepared to carry through; indeed, the Government have acted in defiance of the IMC’s recommendations.

Our amendment would give paramilitary organisations an additional incentive to ensure that their illegal activity did not continue. That is surely something that the Government want. If such a provision had been included in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the political process to date might have been very different. We are talking about the opportunity to ensure that paramilitarism is over, by making sure that a paramilitary organisation cannot cosy up to the Government and make another wee deal on the side with them to get by in spite of its behaviour. It would be foolish to ignore such an opportunity.

In fairness to the Government, it took them two or three weeks to get over the Northern bank robbery of £26.5 million and the McCartney killing, but the fact that they got over those events in a few weeks shows just how little those kind of terrorist events affect the Government’s thinking, because they are considering other issues. I would far rather a body such as the IMC took such decisions, and I would rather the commissioner relied on them, than on politically motivated Ministers.

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

I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 48 to 51, and 54 and 55. Unlike the previous set of amendments, this group contains some amendments about which my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and I have reservations, so although we will listen carefully to the points put forward by other hon. Members, we may request a separate vote on one or more amendments.

I begin with amendment No. 48. Under the clause, a person wishing to avail themselves of the provisions must first make an application to the certification commissioner for a certificate of eligibility. As the Bill stands, the PSNI must tell the commissioner if there are grounds for suspecting that the applicant was guilty of an offence, yet the applicant does not have to take the initiative to admit to anything that they have done, and does not even have to admit to supporting any organisation.

The Government have argued that the Bill is about ensuring closure—given the criticism that I have received for using that expression, I use it tentatively—but how can the Bill ensure that, if those who have committed acts of terrorist violence are not willing to come forward and admit what they have done?

Under amendment No. 48, the applicant would have to state all the offences that he wishes to have considered in his application. He would also have to state which organisation he was associated with. That is important, as under subsection (3) the commissioner must satisfy himself that an applicant does not support a specified organisation. Such a declaration would aid the commissioner in making that decision.

The final part of the amendment requires the applicant to state that he does not support a proscribed organisation or any acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. We have used the term proscribed organisations rather than specified organisations because it is important for   us to know that the people who will avail themselves of the scheme do not support terrorist organisations in any shape or form, whether on ceasefire or not.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I do not want to put the hon. Lady off her stride, but amendment No. 48 tabled in her name and that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who we miss this afternoon, states:

“In making an application under subsection (1), the applicant must state—

(a)all the offences he wishes to have considered under the provisions of the Act”.

The hon. Lady then explained that the purpose of the amendment is to extract the truth. Surely the truth should oblige the applicant to disclose not only those offences to which he wants to admit, but everything horrible—X, Y and Z—that he had done. That is what we want. If that is the intention, the wording of the amendment needs to be tighter.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. It is a matter to which I shall return after I have sought further clarification. Her argument was good; it concerned all offences, as opposed to terrorist offences under the Bill. With her permission, I shall come back to it at a later stage.

It is important not only that the commissioner is satisfied that an applicant does not support specified organisations or will not become involved in terrorism, but that he or she is specifically willing to make such a statement.

Amendment No. 49 is linked to amendment No. 48 in so far as it relates to the organisation with which a person was associated. Although it is important to establish that a person does not support an organisation that is not on ceasefire, it is also important that the organisation with which the person was associated has demonstrated that it has fulfilled its commitments under the Good Friday agreement and has decommissioned its weapons. Although the Bill will deal with individuals, it is important to remember that those individuals carried out terrible acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland in the name of certain organisations. The behaviour of those organisations should also be considered.

Turning to amendment No. 50, under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the conditions that were attached to the licences under which prisoners were released were drawn rather narrowly. They related specifically to the non-support of a specified organisation—not becoming involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, and, in the case of a life prisoner, that the person is not a danger to the public. Given the direct link between paramilitary organisations and organised crime in Northern Ireland, it is vital that the commissioner is satisfied not only that the person who avails himself of the scheme is not involved in terrorism, but that he will not become involved in serious crime.

Amendment No. 51 is connected to amendment No. 50. As with amendment No. 49, it is important that not only the actions of the individual but the behaviour of the organisation with which he was associated should come under scrutiny. All paramilitary violence constitutes a threat to democracy and the rule of law, so it makes sense to link participation in the scheme with non-participation in organised crime.

The purpose of amendment No. 54 is to link the return of fugitives with the return of people who have been exiled from Northern Ireland. Several thousand people have been driven from their homes by loyalist and republican paramilitaries, not only during the troubles but after the signing of the Good Friday agreement. Although some of those who have been exiled may have been petty criminals, others may simply have crossed the local paramilitary godfathers. Their plight is one of the forgotten aspects of the peace process.

The matter was studied in 2000 by the Northern Ireland Committee, which noted the difficulties in quantifying the scale of the problem, as many victims did not report intimidation through fear. Many exiles have struggled to integrate into new communities, and they have been denied the opportunity to return home to attend family events such as weddings and funerals. It would be wrong to allow some paramilitaries to return to their homes in safety while those exiled by the relevant paramilitary organisation are denied the opportunity. Certification must be linked to a positive report by the IMC.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

People have been exiled in terrible circumstances in Northern Ireland, often with guns to their heads or threats to their families. How many of them do the hon. Lady and her colleagues believe wish to come back to Northern Ireland?

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

That is a perceptive question, but I do not know the answer. However, it is important to establish the principle. As well as considering those who have been involved in acts of terrorism, we should consider the exiles. We should give equal consideration to both groups.

Amendment No. 55 would ensure that when someone states that he or she has been a supporter of an organisation, the name of that organisation is published on the certificate of eligibility. It is a simple amendment to ensure that everyone knows where they stand and whether applications are affected by the behaviour of the various organisations.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I have about 20 minutes before the lights are turned out on the Committee.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Is the hon. Lady going to put the lights out?

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

The hon. Member for East Antrim is teasing me, but I never put the lights out. I shall ignore him.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Why not? The Minister does.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I have great difficulty with the clause. It is pivotal to the Bill; it revolves around certificates of eligibility. The amendment to which I have added my name would make changes to the clause, but they will not make the clause acceptable.

I speak in support of the amendments tabled by the official Opposition. The new party leader is now in place, and I am glad that all Conservative members of the Committee are sober enough after the celebrations to be present today—they have made a valuable contribution. It is interesting that some newer Members felt confident enough to speak; I appreciate that. Not to live in Northern Ireland and yet speak for Northern Ireland is always to be welcomed. I might not agree with what is said, but it is to be welcomed.

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 232, 233, 235 and 169. Clause 3 concerns me greatly because of its wording and its inconsistencies. As it stands, it is so inherently discriminatory between different classes of applicants that it would not withstand challenge in the courts on the grounds of its incompatibility with the European convention on human rights. However, we shall deal with that in detail on another occasion.

In the meantime, I support amendments Nos. 112 and 113. Their purpose is to give the certification commissioner discretion rather than a duty to issue a certificate of eligibility if the conditions set out in detail in clause 3—as I said, they are inconsistent—are met. The opening words of clause 3 read:

“Where an application is made to the certification commissioner for a certificate of eligibility, the commissioner must issue a certificate”.

I want the word “must” to be changed so that there is discretion instead of a duty, and I say that for several reasons. Primarily, we must focus again on the need for justice and truth—the two things that this ghastly process denies survivors and victims in Northern Ireland. I would like someone who makes an application to the certification commissioner to have to express some remorse.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East made an interesting contribution on applicants who have committed the most horrendous acts of torture on other human beings in the name of some political cause or their religion, or because the other person was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The certification commissioner should have discretion to take into account expressions of remorse by a defendant who, in their youth or under orders from whatever higher command they belonged to, took the life of another human being.

The other reason why I would like the commissioner to have discretion rather than a duty, and why I support amendments Nos. 112 and 113, is that we have a group of individuals who are referred to as the disappeared. Most regrettably, almost all are young men, although Jean McConville is one of the women who were disappeared and murdered by the IRA 20 or 30 years ago. The bodies of those people have never been recovered, and their families have never had the   opportunity to give them a Christian burial or to achieve closure, in the proper sense, for the loss of their loved ones.

It grieves me to think that those who are responsible for the murders of the disappeared—those almost exclusively Catholic, nationalist young men who were murdered by the IRA and buried somewhere—could make an application outside or inside the Northern Ireland jurisdiction and admit that they were responsible for one of those murders, but never have to disclose where the remains lie. I would therefore like discretion to be built in so that the certification commissioner could take into account issues such as remorse and details about recovering the bodies of the disappeared. Unless those responsible for murders committed 20 or 30 years ago come along and say, “Hands up, I did it. I’m responsible,” we will never recover those bodies.

None of those who disappeared in that time are constituents of mine, but one of the most poignant letters that I have ever received was from a lady in Crossmaglen whose husband was disappeared 23 years ago. I do not want those victims and families forgotten in the process that the Minister and the Government are seeking to drive through the Committee. I therefore fully support the idea that the certification commissioner—if and when we have one—should have discretion rather than a duty, so that he has the flexibility to take into account important principles such as expressions of remorse and the recovery of the bodies of the disappeared.

Amendment No. 169—I am taking the amendments slightly out of order—is important. It is similar, but not identical, to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). The amendment would impose a positive duty on the applicant to provide full and proper disclosure of all their wickedness—not only, as I said to the hon. Lady in an intervention, to point out those offences to which he, or possibly she, wants to confess, but to extract a certificate of eligibility.

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

I have consulted on the hon. Lady’s previous question. We wanted the amendment to include the words “serious crimes”, as we do not believe it appropriate for an individual’s every parking ticket, fine or small misdemeanour to be included. The precise definition of a serious crime is, however, open to interpretation.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. Amendment No. 169 says

“that the applicant in his application has disclosed all the offences committed by him to which this Act applies.”

The amendment makes it quite clear that it applies not to parking tickets or to minor offences, but to all the offences committed by him to which the Act applies. The applicant cannot therefore pick and mix and have amnesia about very serious offences to extract a certificate of eligibility from the certification commissioner for a particular offence.

The amendment would thus ensure that the process became a truth process, which is the one thing that has been denied in the Minister’s proposal—rather, it is   the Government’s; I should not blame him alone—to offer amnesty without truth, which I cannot in conscience support.

Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey, Conservative)

The hon. Lady speaks most eloquently about her concerns for the victims. Given that the Government have decided to vote down every amendment that has been pressed so far, does she agree that the most appropriate way for the Committee to proceed before we return next week is for the Minister to table amendments that genuinely take into account the concerns for the victims that have been expressed on both sides of the Committee?

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very valuable contribution. I do hope that the Minister takes home copies of Hansard, which I think will be available, and reflects on the wise advice from a young head, if I may say so. This is ghastly, hideous legislation, but there are opportunities to make it a little more acceptable, which some of us are trying to do. It is soul-destroying and utterly dispiriting for the Minister to reject every amendment out of hand. He is responsible for building confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, so it therefore behoves him to improve the Bill in a way that offers truth and some fairness to those who have lost their loved ones. As it stands, this legislation simply does not do that.

Amendment No. 233 would remove from the commissioner the power to determine whether a person supports a specified organisation. Instead, it would permit members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to determine whether an individual is a member of a specified organisation. Committee members need to be aware of the difference between proscribed and specified organisations. I am sure the Minister will explain that and justify why only those who are not members of specified organisations will benefit from the provision in clause 3.

As the Minister has indicated that he will not accept a panel of three, and there will be one certification commissioner, I wish to remove from the commissioner the determination of whether an applicant is supporting a specified organisation, because that would remove any possibility of external or political pressure being brought to bear on that individual. It would also make a significant improvement to the Bill. I hope that other Committee members will support my amendment.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Committee members were made some promises about the time, which might be one of the few promises or assurances that end up being honoured during the proceedings.

I want to pick up some points that hon. Members made in respect of their amendments. I would not be comfortable supporting all the amendments, for various reasons that I shall not rehearse. A number of amendments would mire the PSNI in the “Twilight Zone” procedures provided for under the Bill. We should not mire it in such dubious procedures,because that could implicate it in things that it would prefer not to be implicated in. It might at least implicate the PSNI in stages that it would prefer not to be implicated in, given that it might have to perform other functions in front of the special tribunal. I have not consulted the police service on that, but I would not be content to support the amendments unless I knew that the people speaking on behalf of the police service were content with such amendments and implications.

The hon. Member for North Down has tabled amendments that would bring the whole truth and the quest for truth into the Bill. Like her, my party has tried to do that and we are, with some of our amendments, trying to open up a whole-truth window, partly because a number of victims’ groups have told us that they would like that. Even though that does not fit well with the Bill, we are trying to do it. Our amendments, which will be dealt with subsequently, might more adequately do that.

We would be more inclined to support the Liberal Democrat amendments, rather than most of the other amendments, because they are more consistent with some of what we said earlier and what we will say in relation to later clauses.

Some DUP amendments, for understandable reasons, would ensure that people could not use the dateline in the Bill to get away with all sorts of things and get the absolution that the new procedures offer, while—post dateline—having been up to their necks in and supportive of all sorts of things. My only problem is with the terms in which those amendments are drafted, which would mean that people could be cut off from accessing the benefits just for having supported an organisation at any time, even though they might well and truly have cut their links and everybody might fully accept that.

There are people involved with paramilitary groups whom everybody accepts have cut their links absolutely, and have indeed performed a valuable public service having done so. Such people would be precluded, and it would be wrong if they were targeted. I know that such people are not the primary or intentional target of the amendments, but they would be co-casualties, so we are not comfortable supporting those proposals.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Coaker.]