Clause 4 - Making and dealing with applications for certificates
Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill
5:30 pm
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.