Clause 4 - Making and dealing with applications for certificates
Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill
4:45 pm
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.