Clause 3 - Certificates of eligibility
Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill
3:45 pm
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.]