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

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 4, page 3, line 19, leave out ‘or on behalf of’.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 58, in clause 4, page 3, line 21, leave out

‘(or those acting on his behalf)’.

Tom Harris (PPS (Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State), Department of Health; Glasgow South, Labour)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I wonder whether I might impose on your chairmanship and ask for permission for gentlemen members of the Committee to remove their jackets.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

I always seek to help Committee members to feel comfortable and relaxed, because we generally make more progress that way. If gentlemen wish to disrobe, they may do so—and take off their jackets.

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

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. May I congratulate you on the brilliant way that you have begun in expediting the business and on your consideration for gentlemen members of the Committee? I presume that you mean the lady Committee members may remove their jackets as well.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

If they must.

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

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 56 and 58, which get to the heart of the most crucial issue for Liberal Democrats—the participation of the applicant in the process.

The suggestion that any qualifying offender will not have to appear before the special tribunal to avail themselves of the scheme is offensive. The amendments would ensure that the applicant had to take the initiative and make the application himself or herself.

Tom Harris (PPS (Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State), Department of Health; Glasgow South, Labour)

I rise to echo the words of the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and to remind my hon. Friend the Minister that there are those of us on the Government Benches who feel that, however intense the feelings on both sides, this legislation should find its way on to the statute book in some form. I must also tell him, however, that the loyalty of those on these Benches who support the Government should not be stretched too far.

There seems to be a real issue of natural justice here, and I hope my hon. Friend appreciates that there are those of us on these Benches who would normally agree with what has been said in moving the amendment. Can he reassure us that the Government are open to persuasion on this point?

I cannot understand why we would ever want to go down the road of allowing former members of terrorist organisations, who have murdered and tortured, not to need to appear personally to answer for their terrible crimes. I simply trust that the Minister can reassure me and my hon. Friends that the Government take the issue extremely seriously.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Again, it is a pleasure to sit under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas. I hope I will feel the same way at midnight, but I am sure that I will, if indeed we are still here at midnight. I rise to speak in support of amendments Nos. 56 and 58. They would amend clause 4, which I find particularly offensive.

Clause 4 is entitled “Making and dealing with applications for certificates”.

It is not concerned with court appearances. Subsection (1) says:

“An application for a certificate of eligibility must be made by or on behalf of the applicant in the manner required by the certification commissioner.”

Amendment No. 56 would remove the option

“on behalf of the applicant”

while amendment No. 58 would remove almost identical wording in clause 4(2):

“The applicant (or those acting on his behalf) must provide any information”.

I would like the Minister agree to the deletion of the words

“on behalf of the applicant”

and

“those acting on his behalf”.

I say that for several reasons.

In Committee, we have to remain focused on the end that the Government wish to achieve. Here, that is an amnesty—a get-out-of-jail-free card for those guilty of extremely serious offences through 30 years of unremitting violence. I compare that with an application, for example, to become a voter in Northern Ireland. Unless there are serious medical or literacy problems, the applicant—the potential voter—is required to apply for individual registration. Likewise, if one requests a passport, it is the applicant, not those acting on behalf of the family, who must apply.

It strikes me as mildly ridiculous, to put it politely, that an applicant who is going to benefit from an amnesty at the end of this process will be able to call in aid their local Sinn Fein representative to apply on their behalf. The very least they should be obliged to do is fill out the application form themselves.

Again, I counsel the Minister to be cautious of making it easier or more advantageous for those who will benefit but are outside the jurisdiction—known, quite rightly, as OTRs—as compared to those within the jurisdiction. I say that because clause 4 cannot be read alone. One has to bear it in mind—I realise, Sir Nicholas, that I am not allowed to jump well ahead—that the very next clause indicates that when an   application is made, it has immediate consequences. It will suspend court proceedings if they have commenced, or prevent proceedings from beginning. So, those within the jurisdiction have a natural incentive to make an application themselves.

I want an assurance from the Minister. If he will not accept the amendment—though I hope that he will, as it would improve the Bill—the very least he can do is, again, explain to the Committee that the words

“on behalf of the applicant”

and

“those acting on his behalf”

have not been written into clause 4 to give an unnecessary and unjustifiable advantage to OTR terrorists.

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull. I am unsure of the Government’s intention in using the language they have used in the Bill. The commissioner will have no way of knowing whether the person is acting on behalf of the applicant, unless the applicant has signed the application off. I could put in an application for someone, and the certifying officer would not know whether that had been done with or without permission unless it was signed off by that person. The only way that this can be dealt with is on the basis that applications bear the person’s signature.

If there is such a form, the Liberal Democrat amendment would not necessarily require it to be filled in by the individual. It would require that person to approve it and to sign it off. The legislation cannot work unless there is the requirement for the applicant to sign the application. Otherwise, the commission will waste a lot of energy in looking at applications that have been submitted vexatiously, on the assumption that that will enable people to find out from the prosecution service whether there is a case against certain individuals.

I hope that everyone recognises that if the Minister could make the giant leap forward of accepting this, there would be a consequence. This measure stands on all fours with the issues covered by, for instance, amendment No. 24, which would require a presence in the court itself. I do not think that the logic that defends this issue can depart when it comes to considering such a presence.

I hope that the Minister makes the minor concession involved in relation to the amendment, but he should also recognise that it would require him to make another further down the line.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Like other Members, I support the amendment. I do not wish to labour the points that have been made about it ensuring that anyone who would benefit from the scheme would have to assert that they did certain things. They would have to take some responsibility for their application. As others have said, they would not have to be the sole producers of every single part of it—people could get whatever assistance and guidance they needed—but they would have to take responsibility for the application.

I hope that the Government will support the amendment. Last week in Committee, they argued against other amendments on the grounds that some people might come along and make all sorts of specious claims that they had committed all sorts of offences. We were told that it is not unknown for people to take the rap for others.

If we are asked to give an argument of that sort credibility in relation to other amendments, we must also address the issue that applications could be made unbeknownst to people. They could be made on behalf of people because someone else was making an application and they wanted to ensure that the certificates and the freezing of evidence trails applied to others as well. People could have applications made in their name unbeknownst to them; it is unclear what people are ready to do. That is a more likely prospect than the scenario the Government outlined last week—all sorts of people queuing up to take the rap for things they had nothing to do with.

Mark Hendrick (PPS (Rt Hon Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Preston, Labour)

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point, but will he also consider the possibility that somebody might stitch somebody else up with such an application? They might not have committed or taken part in any crime or terrorist offence, but a form might be filled out to that effect.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is likely that people could submit applications on behalf of others to spread protection and involve others in an effort to protect themselves. Equally, people could do that vexatiously and provocatively in an attempt to create difficulties for other named persons who might have been content to wait and sit it out. In taking the hon. Gentleman’s point, I hope that he will support the amendment.

Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey, Conservative)

I, too, strongly support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull. It seems that we all accept that the Government are trying to facilitate a healing process in a very difficult situation, but the Minister is, in effect, attempting to help a group of people—who, in many cases, have committed murder—to escape justice. That process makes all hon. Members extremely uncomfortable.

We must be incredibly careful that we do not heap injustice upon injustice through this extremely difficult and, indeed, repugnant process. The feelings and concerns of victims are of most concern to those who dislike this Bill. I ask the Minister how he thinks a victim will feel about a process that goes so very far in the direction of assuaging the concerns and worries of terrorists who have committed murders.

Why would a terrorist not wish to turn up in person for a process by which they will escape all punishment for their crimes? Because they do not trust the judicial process? Because they do not wish to reveal their whereabouts? Is it so important to assuage their fears that the Government are prepared to add fuel to the flames of injustice felt by the victims because of those terrible crimes?

I say to the Minister that there is a logical conclusion to allowing people not to turn up in person. Why not allow them to apply online for a certificate? That is how ridiculous it is when someone escapes a jail sentence for truly terrible crimes. One of the hon. Members from the Social Democratic and Labour party made a point this morning with which I agree.

Tom Harris (PPS (Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State), Department of Health; Glasgow South, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about internet applications. In fact, to have an on-the-run terrorist apply online for a certificate would be preferable to that application being made without the permission, knowledge or acknowledgement of that person. The provisions in the Bill are less preferable than a terrorist sitting down and applying for a certificate online, when they would at least be taking some responsibility.

Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated how utterly absurd it is to allow any process whereby someone who will be excused any punishment for a murder does not have to turn up in person. I agree with the sentiments behind what he said.

One way by which one might win over the victims of atrocities is by setting up a process that gets one a little closer to understanding the truth of what happened when those crimes took place. If one introduces a system by which someone does not even have to turn up in person to be excused of their crimes, the chances of discovering the truth of what happened are dramatically reduced.

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

I welcome you back to the Committee, Sir Nicholas. This is the beginning of the discussion about the involvement—or lack of it—of the applicant in the process. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull. Indeed, our names are also on the amendment paper.

We will have a longer debate about appearances in court when we reach clause 8. So far, we are discussing the making of an application. However, the two matters are linked. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, this is just the beginning of the deeply offensive part of the Bill. It is all offensive, but this is the worst section. Once someone has applied for a certificate on someone else’s behalf, whether he or she has permission to do so or not, clause 5, which is a bad clause, will kick in. Clause 6, then clause 7—exemption from arrest—and then clause 8, under which individuals do not have to attend court, will all kick in. Clause 4 is the beginning of the process.

Surely it is right that applicants should be very much involved in that process. They should be made to understand what is happening and to have some sense of the victims’ concerns. I cannot see why the Government have designed the Bill in this way. Why should applicants not at least have to sign the application in order to authorise it? Whenever one is nominated for something as trivial as membership of a club or for something as important as the leadership of the Conservative party, of which we have had a bit of practice in recent years, one must consent to the   nomination. The Bill is therefore an extraordinary piece of legislation in many ways, and clause 4 is yet another example of how the Bill disregards the victims’ feelings. I find that very offensive. I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the non-involvement of applicants in the application process.

With your permission, Sir Nicholas, I am sure that we shall return to what should prove to be a longer debate on clause 8, which deals with appearance in court. However, I shall be very interested to see how the Minister can defend this particular clause.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I would like to ask the Minister whether he will make clear in his response what acting on behalf of means and whether a definition is required in the Bill, so that we know that not anyone can assume responsibility for making an application. For example, would a solicitor have to be appointed formally? If the Government were to provide clarification, that would be welcome. I ask the Minister to make clear in his response whether “on behalf of” means that someone must be appointed to make an application.

There is a contradiction here. The Government have said that the Bill is a continuation of the early release scheme and that it covers those on the run or who are wanted in connection with offences. However, my understanding of the early release scheme was that prisoners still underwent a procedure in order to be released. No one said, “Here are the keys. Let yourself out of the Maze.” Prisoners still went through a proper procedure and were released on licence. I do not see why the on-the-runs should be exempt from some form of physical procedure in order to qualify for the scheme. The Government would be justified in putting right that contradiction. They should say to Sinn Fein and the other interested parties that a procedure had to be undergone in the early release scheme, so it would be unfair not to include one in this Bill.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I welcome you back to the Chair for this afternoon’s sitting, Sir Nicholas.

I am grateful for the comments made by hon. Members from all parts of the Committee. Clause 4 is the beginning of what will be a series of discussions on some very sensitive issues that will arise in subsequent clauses. Clause 4(1) and (2) relates to how the application for a certificate of eligibility is made. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow—[Interruption.] I am sorry but I have always known my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. In his new incarnation, he has mentioned issues that we shall move on to shortly. Clause 8 deals with court appearances, on which there will undoubtedly be a full debate.

Clause 4 relates to the application for a certificate for the individual who is being considered for the scheme. As hon. Members can examine by looking at the legislation, the application procedure will be that   individuals must apply—either by themselves or by getting someone to act on their behalf—to the certification commissioner for a certificate. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the words “or on behalf of” the applicant. The point here is about making an application for the scheme. We shall come on later to the important points about appearances in court, but the amendment is simply related to the application for the scheme.

The Bill does not require the applications to made through a representative; individuals can turn up and make an application themselves. However, the draft legislation makes assumptions that there may be individuals who will be acting on behalf of the applicant in a normal way. For example, a solicitor could present an application on behalf of the individual, and there may be questions to do with literacy or communication, or a whole range of issues that require somebody to apply on an individual’s behalf.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

Can the Minister not see that because of the way in which the Bill is drafted—it will allow somebody to act on behalf of the applicant at this stage, and will not even require the applicant to turn up in court—it will be possible for the entire process to take place with absolutely zero involvement of applicants themselves? They could be sunning themselves on the Costa del Sol from the moment the application forms were first filled in right through to the licence being given. Can he not see why that would be regarded as not just offensive, but totally inappropriate, if the Bill is meant to be implementing full judicial process?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

We shall come to such matters in later clauses, when we shall debate in full issues such as appearance in court. This clause is just about the application being made by or on behalf of an individual to be considered by the certification commissioner. The proposals allow for individuals to apply themselves, or for someone else to apply on an individual’s behalf. That could be a solicitor, a colleague or any other individual, but it would be highly unusual to prevent applications from being made through a third party in such processes as are before us today.

It may be to the certification commissioner’s advantage that applications are made through, for example, a solicitor, because ease of contact or regular communication or clarification on points may be facilitated by dealing with a third party in that way. I understand, fully and genuinely, why there will be an objection from members of the Committee to later clauses in which the Government propose that individuals will not have to appear in court. However, I find it slightly difficult to understand the objection to this stage—when the application is being made—because the application is simply a way to get into the certification scheme, and to get the certification commissioner to accept an application to consider it and determine whether he or she wishes to approve it, so that individuals can progress to the next stage of the scheme.

Tom Harris (PPS (Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State), Department of Health; Glasgow South, Labour)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and he is explaining the matter well. I accept that my indignation may have been somewhat premature. However, can he reassure the Committee by clarifying something? He talked about a solicitor or any other person being able to make an application on behalf of on-the-runs. Are there any criteria that the Government intend to lay down that would eliminate certain individuals from being able to act in that respect? Will the Government say, for example, that a solicitor is acceptable but a fellow on-the-run may not be?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

The key point in this set of amendments is that the application is made. It is at the point at which the application is made that the process that we have debated so far, and the process that we shall debate later, kicks in. The application is made by, or on behalf of, an individual, and I have left flexibility in the scheme. I have left it open to the certification commissioner to determine details under subsections (1) and (2). He or she will be able to set down the manner in which the application is to be made so that it can be considered and, in due course once the scheme has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, to determine the nature of the application form, including issues such as requiring a signature—perhaps even, distasteful though it might seem, allowing applications to be made online.

It is for the certification commissioner to determine how the application will be made; the key point before the Committee today is that the application is made either by an individual or by somebody representing that individual, so that it can be considered. We have considered the criteria for the application, and we shall consider the more difficult issues that I know hon. Members will raise in detail about the core proceedings. With this set of amendments, and this part of the Bill, the situation would be that an individual wished to avail themselves of the scheme—to make an application or to appoint someone to make an application on their behalf. That is the simple matter before us, and it would not be right and proper to discount the possibility of a representative acting in that capacity.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

Does the Minister consider it healthy that the ability to make an application should be so instant? A member of the police force might knock on the front door of an individual’s house and say, “We would like to question your son or your brother in connection with an incident”. The brother might then nip upstairs and register online. That would be the end of the questioning; it would not be able to occur. Things would be almost instant. The person could be out the back door or he could come downstairs and say, “Sorry, I have just applied. By the way, you will have to leave now”. Does the Minister not recognise that there is a value in at least having more of a process, so that people have to commit themselves to wanting reconciliation, rather than their being able to apply instantly as a quick get out?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

There is a great deal of merit in what the hon. Gentleman says. The legislation is framed in such as way as to ensure that the certification commissioner, whom we considered in earlier sittings and who is appointed to manage and to have an operational responsibility for these matters, determines how best the certificate applications can be made, what form they take and what checks he or she wishes to put into the applications.

The purpose of the legislation as drafted is to give the certification commissioner the ability to allow the application to be made by the individual concerned or by somebody on his behalf, such as a solicitor or other individual. The key point is that the certification commissioner will set down minimum standards about the application information required and the checks made, to avoid the valid points that have been made by hon. Members about nefarious applications. I simply say that the Government have drafted the legislation in this way to give the flexibility to the commissioner to determine those matters.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

With great respect to the Minister, clause 5 contradicts the vast majority of what he has just explained to the Committee. It makes it clear that it is “a person” who applies for a certificate of eligibility and who is the trigger for proceedings being suspended and for the court deciding whether “the person” remains in custody or is granted bail. In fact, it is not flexibility at all that the Minister is aiming for in clause 4. As I say, the aim is to give an unwarranted and unjustified benefit to those who are outside the jurisdiction, because the wording in clause 4 is contradicted by the specific wording of clause 5.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

No, I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady on that point. My assessment is that the application is made by, or on behalf of, the individual. Once it is made and has been agreed, the person’s application under clause 5 has been applied for in terms of a certificate of eligibility. It is a simple question of an individual applying on behalf of an individual for eligibility in the scheme.

I say to hon. Members that I can understand why there will be debates later about these matters, because they are important. Currently, the debate is about an application being made. The legislation simply says that an individual can apply or an individual can arrange for an individual to apply on their behalf. The application is about the individual applying. That is what will be considered in due course.

Huw Irranca-Davies (PPS (Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Ogmore, Labour)

Again, this point is on an issue where there seems to be a contradiction, but the Minister might be able to explain things in the same terms. Subsection (6)(a) states:

“When the commissioner grants or refuses an application for a certificate of eligibility”

and gives the reasons for it, he gives it “to the applicant”. Is that an error in drafting or is there a logical explanation why the application for the certificate could be made by the individual or on their behalf, but the reasons for granting or refusing an   application are given directly to the individual? It might be an error of drafting. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

We are making a lot of this particular aspect, although I recognise the implications for later. The purpose is simply to get the application made. The application is made by the applicant or by someone acting on their behalf, such as a solicitor. When the application is in the system, the response will go back to the applicant. They have made the application or the representative has done so on their behalf. This is simply the trigger to get the process started.

The hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) has made similar points. As an aside, may I congratulate him on his appointment to the shadow Front Bench, which I noticed reported on BBC Ceefax before I came into the Committee today? I think that I will be the first person publicly to congratulate him on that. His contribution to this Committee has obviously drawn him to the attention of the leader of his party, who must be avidly following our proceedings.

I hope that I have answered all the points; I do not want to continue to labour them. This is about the trigger for the application. There are real and genuine issues that Members want to raise later about appearance in court, but this is simply about the method of triggering the application.

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)

I am trying to get my mind around this. I am trying to apply for a resident’s parking permit, and I have to go the council office in person with three forms of identification and all sorts of other bits and pieces. Yet in this case, if I were a terrorist, I could get a certificate without even being there. There seems to be a huge discrepancy. I can see only two real concerns that the Minister could argue would justify the clause. The first is convenience. The second is that if someone turns up from Rio or the Costa del Sol, he might get arrested before reaching wherever in Belfast he had to go to get his certificate.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman’s point about his application for a parking permit is valid, but the point that I am trying to make is that the criteria for the scheme are clearly set down. The methods for dealing with the scheme after the certificate has been approved are very clear. This is simply about an individual applying for a certificate. I have left flexibility in the legislation for the certification commissioner to determine what information he requires and how he wants to get it. I have no doubt that once in post, the certification commissioner will think seriously about that, taking on board the very valid point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) about the convenience of online applications.

This is about allowing an applicant to make an application, or someone to make that application on his or her behalf, as a solicitor would in a normal   process. I believe that that is an adequate way to take the legislation forward and trigger our discussions on later clauses about appearance in court and the tribunal itself. I commend the existing wording to the House, because I believe that although there are valid points that will be discussed in earnest later on, the focus on this aspect of the clause is simply not well targeted.

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

The Minister says he cannot understand the objection that Members from both sides of the Committee have to an applicant assigning his own application form to the commissioner. Under the clause the certification officer will have the flexibility to decide who is a suitable person to apply on behalf of the applicant. Hon. Members who have spoken so far would not agree that it should simply be left to the discretion of an individual to decide who is a fit and proper person to apply on behalf of an applicant.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, South spoke movingly about natural justice for the victims. The hon. Member for North Down and others spoke about how simple it was to become a voter or a passport holder. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—no, it cannot have been him; I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I was going say that he had talked about how easy it was to join the Tory party. Suffice it to say that even for the most basic things, people need to present themselves in person with identification.

What the hon. Member for Belfast, East really asked—I beg his pardon for confusing him with someone else—was how the certifying officer would know that the person had wanted to apply. The person must have to sign the application himself; several hon. Members have drawn attention to that fundamental aspect. It is so important that vexatious or inappropriate applications made without the knowledge or permission of the applicant can be rectified.

Huw Irranca-Davies (PPS (Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Ogmore, Labour)

Will the hon. Lady note that, in his response to me, the Minister clarified the trigger mechanism under subsection (6)(a), whereby the applicant is within the process, and is directly corresponded with? If there were exceptional cases of someone being maliciously put into the system, that would picked up. For example, if a letter landed on the doorstep, the person would respond to it appropriately.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—but if the amendments were accepted, such problems would not arise. There would be no necessity for strange letters that people are not expecting to appear on their doormats.

Tom Harris (PPS (Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State), Department of Health; Glasgow South, Labour)

Even when an individual is required personally to make an application—or at least to fill in a form—might not some form of identity card fraud still be possible?

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

I agree, but at least the amendment would minimise the opportunity for that to happen. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre asked for a clear definition of who could apply on behalf of an applicant. We have not got very far on that subject, apart from being told that the commissioner will have flexibility. We are asking for a small thing, and hon. Members from all parties can see the justice in the proposal, so I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Before we move on to the next group of amendments that I have selected, I again remind the Committee that we are making slow progress. It is not for me to cut down on debate in any way, but I repeat that I think it important that we cover all aspects of the Bill. I intend to adjourn the Committee for a dinner break at half-past 7 for one and a quarter hours, and I can tell the Committee that I have a car available at midnight. It is entirely up to the Committee how much progress it wants to make tonight, but after today’s sittings, we will have some four and a half hours left for debate on Thursday—an hour and 25 minutes in the morning and three hours in the afternoon. I leave it to the Committee to decide how it wants to deal with the Bill, but there are many important matters yet to be discussed, which the Standing Committee should address before we report the Bill.

Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I beg to move amendment No. 239, in clause 4, page 3, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

‘(4)The commissioner must inform the following of all details of the application—

(a)the Secretary of State;

(b)the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(c)the Chief Constable;

(d)the Police Ombudsman;

(e)the victim, where identifiable and practicable; and

(f)the public, in such manner as the commissioner sees fit.’.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 171, in clause 4, page 3, line 26, leave out ‘and’.

Amendment No. 172, in clause 4, page 3, line 27, after ‘Ireland’, insert

‘the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary), the General Officer commanding in Northern Ireland, the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service.’.

Amendment No. 190, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

‘(5)Representations may be made to the Commissioner about the application by—

(a)the Secretary of State;

(b)the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland;

(c)the Chief Constable;

(d)the Police Ombudsman;

(e)the victim; and

(f)any member of the public.’.

Amendment No. 240, in clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—

‘(a)to the applicant

(b)to the Secretary of State;

(c)to the Chief Constable;

(d)to the Police Ombudsman;

(e)to the victim, where identifiable and practicable; and

(f)to the public, in such manner as the commissioner sees fit.’.

Amendment No. 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment No. 120, in clause 4, page 3, line 44, leave out paragraph (d).

Amendment No. 192, in clause 4, page 4, line 4, at end insert—

‘(8A)The rules may not include—

(a)provision allowing the Secretary of State to prevent information about an applicant from being disclosed by the commissioner; or

(b)provision allowing the Secretary of State to prevent reasons that are required to be given to any person under subsection (6) making reference to any matter.’.

Amendment No. 173, in clause 4, page 4, leave out lines 6 to 12 and insert

‘those notified of the application under subsection (4) to the certification commissioner.’.

Amendment No. 15, in clause 4, page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (11).

Amendment No. 243, in clause 6, page 5, leave out line 10 and insert—

‘; and

(b)inform—

(i)the Director of of Public Prosecutions;

(ii)the Chief Constable;

(iii)the Police Ombudsman;

(iv)the victim, where identifiable and practicable; and

(v)the public, in such manner as he sees fit.’.

Amendment No. 18, in clause 6, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

‘and inform the Police Service of Northern Ireland’.

Amendment No. 65, in clause 6, page 5, line 10, at end insert

‘and

()publicise the decision in a manner the Commissioner believes appropriate.’.

Amendment No. 195, in clause 6, page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

New clause 8—Reporting of applications for certificates—

‘Except where doing so would create a danger to the safety of any person, there shall be no restrictions on publishing details of any application for a certificate in a written report in or including a report of such an application in a relevant programme for reception in the United Kingdom.’.

New clause 10—Reporting of proceedings—

‘Except where the court has ruled that doing so would create a danger to the safety of any person, there shall be no restrictions on publishing details of any proceedings under sections 8, 12, 15, 16 or 17 of this Act in a written report in or including a report of such an application in a relevant programme for reception in the United Kingdom.’.

Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I repeat that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and I feel deep concern that the Bill is not about the truth process that we would like there to be. It is more about a cover-up process by which the truth can be buried—a process that, unfortunately, appears to have been agreed between the Government and the political parties, each of which, perhaps, has a mutual interest in hiding issues. It is therefore no surprise to us to find at every turn that information to which victims are entitled is denied to them and to the public. The amendments deal with that deficiency—

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

Because of the acoustics of the building and the hon. Gentleman’s position in the Committee Room, it is difficult for us at this end of the room to hear him, so I would be grateful if he spoke up.

Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I am sorry; I am still learning my way. I am still a little shy, but I am working on it.

Amendment No. 239 would amend clause 4 to ensure that the certification commissioner had to inform the victim, the public, the Chief Constable and the police ombudsman about any application. It is of course particularly important that the victim be informed right from the moment of application, so that he or she does not end up reading about an application only when it is leaked to the newspapers. It is also important that the other people mentioned in the amendment be informed, including the public, because any of the people mentioned could, for example, hold information that showed that the applicant was not eligible because was still involved in some sort of terrorism. That is why amendment No. 190would allow any of those people to make representations to the certification commissioner on an application. It is important that all those people are kept in the information loop as regards the decision on any application and the reasons given for it; that is what amendment No. 240 attempts to achieve.

Amendment No. 243 carries the same transparent approach through to clause 6. It requires that all information on the cancellation of a certificate of eligibility be given to the victim, the public, the Chief Constable and the police ombudsman. Amendments Nos. 16 and 120 are particularly important. Under clause 4, the Secretary of State intends to give himself fairly draconian powers to prevent any information about an applicant becoming public, and to prevent   any reasons given for a decision by the certification commissioner from referring to any matter. Those amendments complement our amendment No. 192 to make it certain that the Secretary of State would not have the power to do that. Without amendment No. 192, the Secretary of State could argue that he had an implicit power effectively to censor the certification commissioner, but the amendment puts it beyond doubt that he cannot do so.

There may be matters that should not be disclosed at times, but it should be for the certification commissioner to decide what should and should not be disclosed. If this is to be an open and impartial process, that should not be a matter for the Secretary of State.

In no circumstances should the name of the applicant, or the fact of the application and any decision on it, be censored, particularly when the legislation applies to crimes that we would describe as state crimes, where people supposedly acting on behalf of the state have acted outside the law. There is a conflict of interests and scope for abuse if the Secretary of State can prevent any information about such situations from becoming public, not least since successive Governments to date have prevented many such matters from becoming public.

That power could be abused in other situations. Last week, the extraordinary situation arose in which the Director of Public Prosecutions announced in what was intended to be a quiet, unlisted hearing that the charges brought against three men in connection with the Stormont spy ring, who had not come to trial for an unprecedented three years, would be dropped—not because of evidential difficulties, but because the proceeding would not be in the public interest, or so we were told. Needless to say, the DPP did not tell the public what their interest in the situation was.

When those charges did not come to court for three whole years, many of us were naturally a bit suspicious. Indeed, our suspicion was justified, because the current Director of Public Prosecutions has failed to take a decision on the recommendation for prosecution arising from the Stevens inquiry and report, two and a half years on. Is he waiting for this piece of legislation to be passed so that the Stevens inquiry becomes marginalised? Last week’s events leave us worried, and wondering if there was yet another side deal on the Stormontgate affair.

If the Secretary of State gets the powers under the clause, there will be a conflict of interests and people will wonder about the use of deals, and about an alliance of sleaze between the Government and the IRA covering up for each other, as they did in the side deal done at Hillsborough in 2003, and as they are attempting to do over the Bill. People will also wonder whether even the names of those who apply for certificates will ever emerge. If their fears are groundless, there is an easy way for the Government to show that: tremendous openness and transparency would be created by supporting the amendments, including amendment No. 195, which would take   away the Secretary of State’s power to withhold information on the reasons for the cancellation of a certificate.

We ask also that in the interests of justice, the Government support amendment No. 15, which would remove the power of the Secretary of State to refuse information to the certification commissioner on national security grounds. Again, it is wrong for the Secretary of State to have that unreasonable power when dealing with serious issues of collusion that successive Governments have tried to cover up for so long. That could also lead to injustice, because the certification commissioner could be denied access to vital information that he or she needed to assess a person’s eligibility. Whoever is appointed as certification commissioner will no doubt be a trusted person, but he or she should be considered worthy enough of trust to be shown all the information that he or she needs to do the job.

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

I support the amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) has no particular emotional capital tied up in its exact wording, but the thrust of the amendment should be supported. Again, the absurdity of the Bill in its present form is shown.

I should like to give two examples of how absurd the Bill is. First, in Northern Ireland there is a fair bit of knowledge about who is being sought in connection with some of the key crimes committed during what we describe as the troubles. Can anyone imagine what would happen if a well known IRA figure who was responsible for the Enniskillen bombing were seen walking round Enniskillen? People would recognise him; some might well attempt to apprehend him and make a citizen’s arrest, and deep offence would certainly be felt by the families of the victims of the bombing. If no notification had been given to those families, one can imagine the hurt that would arise. That example deals with the victims and the necessity of informing them.

My second example deals with the necessity of informing the police. Unbelievably, the legislation requires only the applicant and the Secretary of State to be informed. What will be the consequences if the police are not informed that a certificate has been granted and someone who is wanted comes into the open? The police will arrest the person if they see him, because under the Bill, the police will not have been informed that that person has a certificate. All sorts of difficulties will flow directly from that.

Those are two simple examples. I am sure that the Minister will readily take the advice the Committee is giving him, even though he has taken none thus far. If he does not agree to the amendment in its present wording, he should accept its general thrust.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

I am concerned that despite the powerful arguments made in favour of various amendments, not a single one has been accepted by the Minister. It will be even more curious if he persists in his intransigence and does not accept the sensible arguments being advanced now. The Government talk endlessly about cross-party consensus, but when they   have it, they ignore it. I hope that the Minister will break with the tradition of this Committee so far, show a degree of latitude and listen to the arguments. Otherwise, one asks oneself what the point is of having such debates.

On reflection, the Liberal Democrats would have put their names to amendment No. 16, as well. The relevant paragraph, which the amendment would remove, is:

“preventing information about an applicant from being disclosed to anyone other than the commissioner if the Secretary of State certifies that it satisfies conditions specified in the rules”.

We have no idea what those rules are. I should like the Minister to explain how he can justify refusing amendment No. 16—justify clause 4(8)(c)—and at the same time pretend that that is due process.

Amendment No. 192 would make an even more modest change. It says that the Secretary of State should be required to disclose information to the commissioner. There should be absolutely no reason why the Secretary of State cannot disclose information to the commissioner. If the Minister chooses to resist that amendment, I should like him to give an example of circumstances in which the Secretary of State would not be able to trust the commissioner with such information, bearing in mind the fact that there can be no question of any breach of confidentiality or any risk to any individual.

Amendment No. 195 is also about openness and transparency. I am curious to hear the Government’s explanation of why they cannot even tell someone why their certificate has been cancelled. All the way through there seem to be arbitrary determinations, all based on some kind of secrecy and holding back of information, sometimes not just from the public, but from the applicants. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.

I now turn briefly to the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull. We are trying to normalise the process in terms of reporting. In new clause 8—the other two amendments relate to the same principle—we are seeking reassurance from the Government that the processes in the Bill will be subject to the normal reporting conditions seen in any normal trial. In essence, we want to stress to the Government the importance of the proceedings under the Bill being seen to be open and transparent. That includes the freedom of the press to report on the state of the cases as it sees fit.

The way in which the Bill is framed and the mood music coming from the Minister give me no confidence that there will be the same reporting latitude as there would be for any normal case. I therefore hope that the Minister can give us an absolute assurance that he will accept new clauses 8 and 10 and amendment No. 65 in the spirit in which they are intended. If he cannot do that, I hope that he can persuade us—in a cast-iron way, not just some woolly reassurance—that the provisions of the Bill will allow full and normal reporting. If he is unable to do that, we will have to press new clause 8 to a vote on principle.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 171, 172 and 173, which stand in my name.

Members of the Committee will be very familiar with the arguments that the Minister presented to the Committee this morning on the granting of a certificate of eligibility by the certification commissioner. He was at pains to point out that the certification commissioner had a duty—that he must issue a certificate—and he rejected amendments that suggested that the commissioner should have discretion. The reasons that the Minister gave were that there should be objective criteria on which the commissioner should base his decision on whether to grant the certificate.

Clause 3 cannot hang in limbo—it must be read alongside clause 4. At present, clause 4 is worded so that if the commissioner receives an application under subsection (4), the only persons that he must inform are the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The Minister is trying to persuade the Committee that the certification commissioner will have before him all the significant information that will be required to decide under clause 3(3) whether an applicant, for example,

“does not support a specified organisation”

or

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

It therefore strikes me as absurd that there is no obligation under clause 4 for the certification commissioner to seek information from the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary, from the General Officer Commanding, from the security service, the Secret Intelligence Service and MI5 and MI6. It should have been clear to the Government when they drafted the legislation, that those are precisely the organisations that should be informed by the certification commissioner that an application has been made to him for a certificate of eligibility. The purpose of my amendments is to include those organisations that most obviously should have been included from the beginning.

What is proposed in clause 4 is a quasi-judicial process, not a proper judicial process; it is to run in parallel with the courts in Northern Ireland. I want the Minister to confirm that information submitted to the certification commissioner by MI5 or MI6 and other intelligence agencies will be admissible. There appears to be no clarification in schedule 2 or elsewhere about the rules of evidence in that quasi-judicial process. Will he also confirm that hearsay evidence, intercept evidence and other evidence that might become available to the certification commissioner will be acceptable in helping him to reach his objective conclusion on whether an applicant supports a specified organisation and meets the other conditions set out in clause 3? The Committee is entitled to clarification from the Minister on what evidence will be acceptable.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Members who tabled the amendments.I shall try to cover some of the points that have been made in the debate and give the flavour of the Government’s assessment of the amendments.

First, I shall explain in some detail why only the Secretary of State and the DPP are specified. I explained in the debates on earlier clauses why the Government do not believe that victims should be included at the application stage and I will not repeat what I said.

The Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for the operation of the scheme and for protecting the safety of individuals in those circumstances. The DPP has a specific responsibility under certain clauses because he has a remit in relation to prosecutions, either advising on what grounds prosecutions should already exist, or taking up a case in which a certificate has been lost. His role is essential to the effective working of the scheme and the Secretary of State has a responsibility for the scheme. That is the sole reason why the Secretary of State and the DPP are mentioned in the clause as being bodies to be informed by the certification commissioner of the progress of the scheme.

Hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for North Down, asked why the Police Service of Northern Ireland is not listed. My assessment is that the PSNI will not need formally to be informed because it is involved from the outset in the certification process. It will need to provide much of the evidence for the discussion about the information provided under earlier clauses.

Peter Robinson (Belfast East, DUP)

This is preposterous. The involvement of the PSNI at the early stage is needed to inform the eligibility commission whether there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution to be pursued. At no stage during the process will the police be aware whether the certification commissioner has granted a certificate. Is the Minister therefore assuming that anyone for whom an application is made should not be arrested by the PSNI if it sees them on the street? If the Minister is saying that because the police have been involved, that is sufficient and they do not need to know any more, he is really saying that all a person has to do is to put in an application; it does not matter whether it is granted or not.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I believe that the police will be involved in discussions from the outset of the process as part of the application for the certificate. The police will be working hand in hand with the commissioner on eligibility for that certificate. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that the police will be part and parcel of the process.

We have specified the DPP in the legislation because the DPP will be party to the progression of the case and we have specified the Secretary of State because the Secretary of State has overall responsibility for the scheme, but we have deliberately resisted the temptation to specify more organisations or individual office holders. Our reasoning is that to attempt to draw up a comprehensive list of specific bodies could create   difficulties and awkwardness in respect of those that are not on the list. I am sure that the PSNI and other bodies will become aware of the progress of the certification procedure, but I have specified only the Secretary of State and the DPP for the reasons that I have outlined.

Hon. Members asked whether other bodies in addition to the PSNI should be required to assist the certification commissioner by providing the information that he will need in order to make his decisions. Again, to attempt to compose a comprehensive list could cause difficulties if someone were omitted. Making the PSNI the principal channel through which information is passed to the commissioner ensures absolute clarity.

We debated on earlier occasions why victims and the general public cannot be informed at the point of application to the scheme. For a range of reasons that I have covered, we feel that such information should not be put into the public domain at that stage. However, under schedule 1 the commissioner will be responsible for providing information to victims once the certificate has been granted. There is nothing to stop him combining that liaison with providing more information to the public at large. After all, giving information to victims could, in effect, put it into the public domain. Therefore, there is no need for the amendments requiring the certification commissioner to provide information to the public as he sees fit, as that is already implicit in the fact that he will keep victims informed. I am fairly sure that many victims will want to make such knowledge public.

Several amendments challenge the protections against disclosure of information that might prejudice national security. The hon. Member for Belfast, South has tabled amendments in that respect, the issue was raised on Second Reading and it has been referred to in earlier debates. The Secretary of State has a specific duty under existing legislation to ensure that he protects life and upholds national security. That has been translated into the Bill so that nothing the certification commissioner does can prejudice individuals’ safety or national security. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that, because national security is involved, I cannot go into the details of how that provision might work in practice, but I assure the Committee that the powers in the Bill are not intended to give the Secretary of State a discretionary power simply to cover up matters. They are not intended for that purpose at all; they are intended specifically to give the Secretary of State a responsibility—as he has under other legislation—to ensure the safety of individuals, and not to prevent danger to their reputations. The power is about safety and national security. If the Secretary of State uses it at all, he will use it sparingly for reasons that come under the general heading of national security.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) spoke about reporting restrictions. That is an important issue and I hope that I can satisfy him on it and that he will not press his amendments. The normal powers of a judge to impose some sort of restriction in a Crown court will be available to the special tribunal,   but nothing will be available that goes beyond what would be available in normal circumstances. The Bill does not impose any reporting restrictions. It protects sensitive material before it is disclosed, which is appropriate, but the presiding officer of the tribunal will have exactly the same powers as a Crown court judge, and nothing beyond that, so that there is an opportunity for openness and discourse during the deliberations of the tribunal.

Lembit Öpik (Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Affairs; Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister satisfies me on that point. However, it is sad that his reassurances that the other powers will be used only sparingly do not hold much water given the recent performance on terrorism prosecutions, which shows that the Government are quite willing to apply in inappropriate circumstances whatever legislation they have been given.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I repeat, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has a duty to protect national security and has obligations as a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998. Clause 4(11) is designed to deal with the exceptional circumstances in which the provision of information to the commissioner would conflict with one of those duties. There is a similar understanding for all Ministers in relation to national security issues. We are talking about the Secretary of State’s obligations and the exercise of his power under clause 4.

I hope that I have covered the points raised. I probably have not done so to the satisfaction of hon. Members, but I hope that I have at least given the justification and rationale for the Government’s position.

Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Will the Minister clarify one outstanding inconsistency, which he highlighted in his response to the hon. Member for Belfast, South? The Minister emphasised that there was no need to write into the Bill the obligation on the commissioner to inform anyone beyond the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions and he refused to accept the suggestion that the PSNI should be informed. However, clause 4(9) and (10) impose a duty on each member of the PSNI to comply with any requirement to give the commissioner information. It beggars belief that in the clause there is a duty on members of the PSNI to co-operate with the certification commissioner, but the Minister has refused to accept an amendment to the effect that the commissioner has an obligation to inform the PSNI of an application. Could the Minister try to resolve that complete inconsistency in the Bill?

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

Again, I say to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for Belfast, East, who also raised the point, that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will of course be informed at every stage. I just do not happen to believe that that needs to be stated in the Bill. The DPP and the Secretary of State have specific responsibilities. The police will be heavily involved in the process of certification and I believe that that is sufficient.

Let me answer one further point that the hon. Lady put to me, which I inadvertently forgot to deal with. She asked whether intelligence material supplied by intelligence sources was admissible in the special tribunal. I hope that I can reassure her by saying that the normal rules of evidence   will apply, exactly as they would apply in a Crown court. In other words, it would not be admissible to include intercept evidence, but in all other respects the situation would be the same as in a Crown court.

Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I thank the Minister for his comments, but there is still a wide gap and serious concerns have been raised through the amendments. I could say more but rather than delay the Committee, I propose to press amendment No. 239 to a vote as the flagship for the group.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

The Committee is very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the brevity of his winding-up speech.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I beg to move amendment No. 242, in clause 4, page 4, line 4, at end insert—

‘(8A)The rules may not include provision about amendment of certificates of eligibility (whether by the addition or deletion of certified offences or otherwise).’.

The fact is that clause 4(8)(f) allows the certification commissioner to amend

“certificates of eligibility (whether by the addition or deletion of certified offences”.

We would certainly be uncomfortable with such a broad power, and the circumstances in which it could be used.

We do not believe that the assurances which the Minister tried to offer in relation to previous clauses—that powers would be used in a measured and restrained way, and not be abused in any sweeping or unexplained way—can be attached here. If there are legitimate circumstances for the provisions in the Bill, they should be stated in the Bill, so that we can debate them. That has not been done and that is why amendment No. 242 would remove that broad and worrying power.

It is precisely to remove that facility that we tabled amendment No. 242, which gives us the opportunity to ask the Government to think again. We seek to give the Government the opportunity to remove a sweeping provision that will be wide open to abuse and that will leave the public with a process that is increasingly questionable, but in which no one has any right to ask questions and no one is under any duty to provide answers.

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

I request clarification on what happens if new evidence comes to light. Would the individual request another certificate? Would the commissioner issue one? I want to know how that would work.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is precisely why we have said that, if there is a case for the use of any such facility, we prefer to see that stated in the Bill, so that we can debate it. The problem is that we are faced with an increasingly enigmatic process. I cannot resolve exactly what will or will not happen in relation to that process. There are many aspects of it with which I fundamentally disagree, and others that many of us are at a loss to understand. In any case, those questions will arise.

It is not clear how the provision in the Bill would be limited in its application. Nor is it clear that it would not be just another device, like the magic phrase, “in the public interest”, to switch the argument and switch issues. We tabled the amendment because we want to   hear what the Government have to say on the matter. If they have a case that is defensible, that should be stated in the Bill.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Foyle for tabling his amendment. It gives us the opportunity to explain again the Government’s thinking on this matter. I am happy to explain why the Secretary of State has the power to make rules about amending the certificate. Some key matters arise from that, which I hope the Committee will accept after having heard the explanation.

The provision allows the certification commissioner to remove offences from the certificate. I shall provide a couple of examples of why that circumstance might arise. It might subsequently become clear that the offence on the certificate is not a qualifying offence, and the certification commissioner may wish to make an amendment to that effect. It might subsequently become clear that the person who was suspected of the offence was, ultimately, not suspected of the offence, and the offence might need to be removed for that reason. More importantly, it is possible that offences could be added to the certificate once it has been granted and agreed. That is an important point that I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise. That might happen when the police bring charges against an individual. The police might bring one charge very speedily, but might also, once that is entered on the certificate, allow other related investigations to continue, so that further charges are brought and further offences are listed later.

The original certificate may well apply to only one charge. The power of the Secretary of State to amend the certificate, in line with the Bill as currently drafted, will allow further offences to be added for consideration at a later stage. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Given that other provisions will ensure that, when people apply for certificates for any offence, they will be protected from serious police pursuit in relation to any other qualifying offence under the Bill, the scenario painted by the Minister of the police investigating related offences will not arise. His legislation would prohibit the police from doing that. No charges will be coming forward from the police in respect of related offences because of other parts of the Bill.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

Other related ongoing investigations may bring out charges that could be added to the certificate. Although the Bill later outlines certain matters in regard to the police, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that there may still be the opportunity from related investigations or other sources to bring related charges in respect of an individual when the original certificate has been granted. The power under his amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of State or the certification commissioner to add those offences to the certificate. That would be a detrimental step.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Does the Minister not accept that many of us know that people may apply for a certificate in relation to one or other offence and that they may well be guilty of other offences? If charges were to be brought in relation to other offences, would it not be better that they can be the subject of a new certificate and application if people see fit? It is precisely the Minister who is contradicting the argument that he has made for other parts of the Bill. Those of us who want the amendment are at least being consistent. If there were other offences on which there might be charges, they should be the subject of a separate process.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I disagree with my hon. Friend on that point. The police will be able to investigate related offences. If the clause were accepted as drafted, the related offences could be added to the certificate to ensure that they were considered as part of the process, which is why the provision should be retained and why I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Unfortunately, I will not accept the Minister’s invitation to withdraw the amendment. I make the point again that, if other charges might be brought, it would be more credible and transparent to make the offences the subject of a new certificate.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

The Minister said that new charges might be brought, but the very next clause states:

“Where a person applies for a certificate of eligibility—

(a)no proceedings may be commenced”.

It goes on to say that

“any such proceedings already commenced”

must be suspended. Where are the new charges to come from?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point. The Minister is talking in riddles. His arguments against our amendment are not consistent with what he is presenting under the Bill.

The Minister said that there may be new charges. Those charges could concern different cases, different events with different victims. He told us earlier that victims should not be notified about an application for a certificate. The rest of us have said that victims should be notified. With the same consistency that we say that victims should be notified of an application for a certificate, we are saying that, if there are new crimes and new offences for which someone should be charged, those offences should be part of a separate application. Those of us who say that victims should be notified of an application say that such notification should go with the application.

Huw Irranca-Davies (PPS (Rt Hon Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Ogmore, Labour)

I seek clarification in relation to the intervention by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). In the subsequent clause that relates to such matters, it seems, in effect, that investigations are put on hold while the application and the certification process is carried out, but then they can recommence and additions can be made subsequently when the certificate has been awarded.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I think that the hon. Gentleman should consider more fully just what the provisions are subsequent—

Mr. Hansonrose—

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

Order. I suggest that the hon. Member for Foyle deals with one intervention at a time.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

As I was saying, it seems to me, and I am not alone, that the subsequent provisions in the Bill that we will be dealing with effectively freeze serious evidential pursuit by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, not just in relation to the charges that might be the subject of the original certificate application but to any charges on offences that might qualify under this Bill.

David Hanson (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Delyn, Labour)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because, again, I am trying to clarify the point that he is making. Proceedings under clause 5, which we will come on to shortly, are legal proceedings that follow from charges; they are not the charges. In relation to the circumstances that I am discussing today, offences can be added to the certificate under clause 5. The legal proceedings will be stopped and reviewed; it is not that charges cannot be brought. Under the legislation, as currently drafted, there is nothing to stop new offences being investigated, charges being made and offences being added to the certificate.

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I thank the Minister for his point, which I still do not accept deals with this matter. It certainly does not dispose of the questions that we have about subsequent clauses. It is clear that once somebody has the benefit of a certificate for any offence, the police will have limited opportunity to pursue them seriously in relation to any offence that might be deemed a qualifying offence under this Bill. That is how sweeping the provision is. The police are clear about that being the effect. They are also clear that the chances of being able to get prosecutions under this procedure will be limited. They are limited deliberately.

Let us remember that the Bill has not just been the work of a Minister who came to Northern Ireland in May. It is the product of deliberate and dedicated negotiations involving the Government and Sinn Fein. People are looking to protect the interests of certain people and are trying to do so in the name of the public interest. To think that we all have to be saved from the truth. It was bad enough that we lived through the brutality of what happened, but we are now not to be entrusted with the truth. We are somehow to be spared it.

We know what the Bill is about. It is not about bringing closure. It is about closing off the truth. The Minister refused to accept victims being notified when certificates are applied for. Now certificates can metamorphosise into having all sorts of other offences   that were not there originally with nobody given much by way of notification or explanation. That would be wide open to abuse.

The Minister must recognise that many of us are working in the light of recent events. The reality is that the Secretary of State’s assertions about the public interest in respect of the collapse of the prosecutions last week, his refusal to provide any further statement and his opposition to any parliamentary discussion on the matter raise a number of questions. The first is whether anybody believes him. I do not believe that people believe that those prosecutions were withdrawn last week purely on the initiative of the Director of Public Prosecutions. People suspect that, for wider political convenience, side deals were done. Much of the language being used by Government in this regard only reinforces that suspicion on the part of many people. This is just yet another power that we believe would be open to abuse and manipulation, not just by the Secretary of State.

Mark Hendrick (PPS (Rt Hon Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Preston, Labour)

Is it not the case that to issue a new certificate is no different from adding new charges to an existing certificate, in the same way that if somebody is in prison, they are there and cannot be imprisoned twice at the same time?

Mark Durkan (Foyle, Social Democratic and Labour Party)

No, it would not be the same, particularly if the Bill were amended in the way in which many of us have sought to amend it. Some of us wanted an approach that was victim-centred and victim-sensitive, and said that victims should be notified in respect of anything that might appear on a certificate, and should be notified at the point of application. We want consistency with our position on other aspects of the Bill and our other amendments. That is why we say that, if there were new offences and new crimes that qualified under the Bill—they might well be not at all related to the other offences; they might be about completely different events, involve completely different accomplices and have completely different victims—that should be the subject of a separate application, of which victims should be duly informed.

My hon. Friends on the Government Benches might be happy to be inconsistent in how they treat different aspects of the Bill and in what they say about them, as well as in how they vote, but some of us are labouring to be consistent, because we are dealing with serious issues on behalf of people who have suffered a lot.