Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 14 February 2002.

Standing Committee F

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I congratulate hon. Members on their ingenuity in making it here today. We are now quorate, and we can proceed.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 5 - Equality Duty

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause is straightforward. It seeks to amend the Bill to bring the agencies of the criminal justice system within the remit of equality legislation by including the agencies in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Given their important functions, it is entirely appropriate that those agencies should be bound by that statutory duty.

One of the issues that has most undermined public confidence in the justice system is the perception that those in positions of authority do not reflect the community that they serve. Indeed, it seems that they believe that they are outside the remit of the requirement for equality. The fact that a justice review was included in the Good Friday agreement reflected that view. Moreover, I believe that the full implementation of the justice review recommendations will lead to the creation of a justice system that can be identified with and owned by all. In particular, holding the justice system to the same standards of equality proofing that bind government is logical. It will play an important part in the process of confidence building.

I am certain that it will be argued that the exclusion of those bodies is justified on the basis that they perform quasi-judicial functions. However, hon. Members will recognise that it is the policies and procedures of the agencies that would be equality proofed, not individual judgments. As policies and procedures apply, as far as possible, across the board to all agencies in the north of Ireland, and to every Government Department, I believe they should apply

also to the bodies that I have specified in the new clause.

It seems anomalous that the agencies set up by the Government should not be subject to the same equality provisions as the Government Departments that will implement the Bill. It is illogical that those Departments that are responsible for the fundamental decisions that will be required to be made under the remit of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act should not be subject to the same remit.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

My hon. Friend anticipates some of the arguments that I may deploy, but I reassure him that I shall not use the word ''quasi-judicial'', other than in this intervention. Will he consider the requirement for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make decisions on individual cases on merit? Is he concerned-or has he considered-that the requirement on the DPP to apply the considerations in the new clause in individual cases might have an impact on his impartiality?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I spoke privately to the Minister about that before we came to the Committee, because it was one of the issues that worried me. I am still not clear about it, and I would welcome advice.

Section 75 applies to policies and procedures alone, and I cannot see how the DPP or his office could make a convincing case that their policies and procedures should not be equality-proofed. I was at pains to say that the provision would not apply to individual cases brought by the DPP. However, if what we do and what we have already done in many instances in the north of Ireland is to be consistent, the policies and procedures of the DPP's office and of the other offices in the new clause must comply with the equality duty in section 75.

I asked the Minister privately whether there were technical or arcane legal reasons why section 75 should not apply, and I should like to hear about any such reasons. It would contribute much to the public's perception of the agencies if they came within the remit of section 75.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

My hon. Friend is correct that we had a private conversation, and I endeavoured to give him a quick response to his legitimate question about whether there was a legal bar-I interpreted that to mean a legislative bar-to his proposals. I must engage him on the issue, however, because the DPP's essential function is prosecutorial. Whether or not one can restrict the application of section 75 in the way that my hon. Friend proposes is a moot point. Regardless of whether one could do so, I am concerned that such a requirement on the DPP would spill over into his decision-making function in individual cases. I do not ask my hon. Friend to solve that dilemma, but to discuss and consider it.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I take the Minister's point, but I am not competent to give examples of the situation that he describes-I simply cannot envisage any. Nor can I envisage the DPP and his office working properly if their policies are not in accord with the equality duty in section 75. I would be greatly disturbed if I thought that the policies or the procedures of the DPP's office

did not comply with that duty. I fail to see the distinction between the operation of the policies and the operation of the procedures, or how those could stray into and affect individual cases in relation to the equality duty. People with more experience of dealing with legal matters might be able to advise us as to how that might happen. I do not see how policies would not be amenable to the equality duty or would affect a case in a detrimental way. The same applies to procedures. I cannot understand why the procedures of the DPP's office and the other agencies would be such that they would not be required to be in accord with the equality duty.

The Minister asked for an answer, but I cannot give him one. I cannot envisage circumstances in which anyone would suggest that the agencies involved in criminal justice should not be required to be compatible with the greatest element of justice in our system, which is the duty on equality in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

As you know, Mr. Conway, I am absolutely delighted to have followed in your footsteps to reach the Committee safely this morning.

I have two points. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that, under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2000, the Northern Ireland Court Service is designated under section 75 of the 1998 Act. However, if I were to follow the logic of his argument, would it not be correct to say that the office of the police ombudsman of Northern Ireland should also be included in the equality provisions in section 75?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I believe that all parts of the administration should be subject to section 75, and have argued for that forcefully for the past three years. It is remarkable that aspects of the administration that one would have thought would be no problem, such as universities, have adamantly stayed outside the section 75 duty. We may have persuaded the universities-that is a gentle way to put it-that they were wrong.

I see no reason why the procedures and polices of the ombudsman's office are outside the duty, and no reason why any organisation, especially those that deal with justice, should not be under the remit of that duty.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I will give way, although I suspect that a subtle trap is about to be sprung.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am not sure whether I am known for my subtlety.

Our interesting discussion is a result of the intervention made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and I am not intervening because I disagree with anything that has been said by her or my hon. Friend. I merely want to ensure that he understands that section 75 of the 1998 Act cannot be restricted to policies and procedures. It applies to the functions of a body. I mention that as a matter for debate, not as a block to what he sets out to achieve. I

just want to extend the debate to include some of the relevant offices, with an understanding of their functions, which sometimes affect individuals.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

This is the heart of the matter that needs to be resolved. I understand what the Minister says, but surely the terms of the required proofing would not apply to specific cases; what must comply are, first, the policies of an organisation and, secondly, the procedures. Stemming from that, those policies would be applied to individual cases, as would the procedure. As to the principles in section 75, how can it be wrong for the principles of equality established in relation to policies and procedures to be applied practically in individual cases?

It is not as if the equality duty would be impartial of itself-quite the opposite. Policies begin to mean something only when they are applied. The highest standard of application is surely the best. The same applies to procedures. They may be efficient and may look good on paper, but they, too, will surely work more beneficially if the highest standard is applied to them. The highest standard of equality is the one specified in section 75.

I remain convinced that applying that standard would be right and that, regardless of any arcane twist of illogicality, it should be in the Bill. I cannot foresee circumstances, in relation to how the Director of Public Prosecutions or ombudsman perform their duties, in which the requirement for equality would be detrimental to the actions of their departments.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

What I find interesting about the new clause is the principle put forward by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The Minister's points may be technically correct. I do not want to criticise him, but he sounded a trifle pedantic. If the principle is accepted, there is a case for the change that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh proposes.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Without wanting to reinforce my growing reputation as a pedant, I want the Committee to consider whether the application of the section to the DPP might impinge on the duty of impartiality in an individual case. That might seem pedantic to us, but if the influence of such a provision on the DPP's duty to examine the evidence on its merits and make an independent, impartial decision affects the decision whether to prosecute someone, the matter will be far from pedantic. It will be highly significant in Northern Irish society.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Minister will need to show how building in the need to have due regard to the promotion of equality of opportunity between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status and sexual orientation and between men and women generally can compromise an organisation's ability to do its job. I suggest that the opposite applies. It would give an assurance to people in those groups-all of us are in one or more of them-that they would not lose out on account of prejudicial behaviour or attitudes displayed by any of the groups or individuals listed in the new clause. I thought that the Minister sounded pedantic

because I do not understand why the Government should resist including something that is already there by precedent as a result of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for comparable groups and organisations. Why is the Minister not willing to extend it by using what could almost be regarded as a housekeeping amendment to bring all the other organisations into line?

If this new clause or something like it were implemented, it would be unlawful for a public authority to discriminate or to aid or incite another person to discriminate against a person or class of persons on the grounds of, for example, religious belief or political opinion. New clause 5 seems to be an insurance policy against discrimination rather than a barrier to equal treatment. Can the Minister explain why he thinks that it is a barrier, as so far he has not done so?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The new clause would amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998, designating the listed organisations for the purposes of sections 75 and 76. Section 75 creates a duty on public authorities to have due regard to the promotion of equality of opportunity between each of the nine categories of person. I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for listing them. Section 76 makes it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate or to aid or incite another person to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh said, in essence, that it is important in the context of what the Bill seeks to achieve to give a clear message on the issue. I welcome his general welcome for the Bill and the implementation of the review provisions. He is supported by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. The Government, who were responsible for introducing the provision in the 1998 Act in the first place, share that view. However, care needs to be taken in imposing statutory duties. I sought, in relation to one of the categories, to engage the Committee in debate as to whether that careful attention in relation to the DPP might reveal issues that were at least worthy of consideration. When I intervened, I did not say that that would necessarily be a block to the application of the provisions to the DPP. However, I was seeking to engage people in debate about whether they had thought the process through, particularly in relation to my hon. Friend's concerns about the section 75 obligations. I pointed out that they could not be restricted in the way in which he thought because of policies and procedures. If it were simply a matter of policies and procedures, with no concern about possible consequences, it might be more straightforward.

Some of my hon. Friend's concerns, which are reflected in the new clause, have been dealt with already. For example, the Northern Ireland Prison Service is already bound by sections 75 and 76 of the 1998 Act by virtue of being an agency of the Northern Ireland Office. It does not require separate designation. The Lord Chancellor and his Department are already bound by section 76, by virtue of section 76(7)(a) and (b). The Lord Chancellor

does not need to be covered by section 75 because, as the hon. Member for North Down said in an intervention, the Northern Ireland Court Service is covered instead.

I understand that there is some confusion, which is reflected in the new clause, about who and what is covered under the important sections of the 1998 Act. That shows the importance of addressing the difficulties of getting the designation right. The other bodies listed would have to be considered individually to assess the extent to which they can affect equality of opportunity and community relations, consistent with their primary duties. That is relevant to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which primarily carries out prosecutorial functions. I have no doubt that other administrative functions are appended, but most of the DPP's policies relate to prosecutorial functions and are designed to deal with individual cases. Those cases are decided by the DPP on merit, and there could be difficulties-some would say that there will obviously be difficulties-in reconciling the principle of impartiality and the duty to pay regard to equality considerations in the DPP's decision-making processes.

I repeat, because it is an important point, that section 75 applies to bodies designated in carrying out the functions. Although policies and procedures are covered, the provision is wider than that. I also repeat that the DPP's essential function is a prosecutorial one. Insufficient regard has been paid to that point, although I have tried to widen the debate.

What value can be added by designating the Lord Chief Justice's office, which comprises only three people? That is another legitimate question. Nor have I become any clearer, between the time the new clause was tabled and this debate, about the scope for the Crown Solicitors' work to affect equality of opportunity.

In respect of the criminal justice inspectorate, we should also reconsider what value would be added by designation. It might be more straightforward in the case of the Northern Ireland Law Commission, but some consideration must be given to including that body in relation to section 75. Detailed consideration has been undertaken of all the bodies that are part of the list to which the sections already apply.

For the reasons that I have given, we should take full account of the implications of bringing within the scope of the statutory duties under the 1998 Act the agencies listed in the new clause. If, having considered every case, we believe that there is scope for them to affect the quality of community relations, we shall designate them under section 75(3)(a) and (b) of the 1998 Act. If appropriate, we shall table an amendment to section 76 in due course. We are not ruling out the prospect of amendments in the context of the Bill's progress. On the understanding, therefore, that we will look into that in more detail, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

The Minister is right that there is some confusion on my part. The core of the problem seems to be his assertion that it would be possible, for what

he described as consequences of policy and procedure, for adherence to the equality duty to impinge on individual cases. That seems to suggest that he believes that a case that must be decided on merit-I am at one with him on that; the DPP must decide on merit-could somehow be weakened by adhering to the equality duty. I think that that is the Minister's suggestion, but I am still keen to find out how the merit of a case that has been decided by the DPP could be weakened if the equality duty were applied.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I shall try to be more specific, because we should try to tease out the issue.

The designation under section 75 of the 1998 Act would require the DPP, for example, to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religions. Some thought must be given to how that fits into the process of deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute someone and whether it is in the public interest to do so.

What is the balance between the other duties of the DPP and this new statutory duty? I am not suggesting to my hon. Friend that it is impossible to reconcile the two, but it is an important issue.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for those remarks. Of course, in those circumstances, the DPP must surely decide on merit. There is no doubt about that. However, the need to make a decision on merit does not prevent him from applying the other requirements under section 75. It is stretching the argument too far to suggest a hypothetical situation in which the DPP is wrestling to decide a case on its merits and at the same time wondering what the effect might be on community relations. I cannot imagine any DPP who is worth his salt looking at a case in that way. I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, but I am still not convinced.

I want to make two other points. The first concerns perception. We have a new Bill that introduces a new approach to justice in a new political dispensation in a new millennium and century-

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I want to put one argument to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, because the Minister made a fair point. Section 75 of the 1998 Act states:

''A public authority shall in carrying out its functions relating to Northern Ireland have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity . . . between men and women''.

If the DPP has more men to prosecute than women, how can he possibly comply with section 75? It is incompatible with his duty to prosecute.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I have been impressed by the legal arguments put during the past three weeks by the hon. Lady and the Minister, who are professionals in that field. However, this is one argument by which I am not terribly impressed because, at the end of it all, the hypothesis is facile. It is facile to argue that, under section 75, the DPP would somehow or other find himself required to ensure that an equal number of men and women were prosecuted, or that he would

have to prosecute a certain percentage of people from ethnic groups as opposed to people who have always lived in Northern Ireland.

We could take the hypothesis to an extreme and ask how many Catholics were prosecuted last year, as opposed to Protestants. What is the percentage? How many nationalists were prosecuted during the past two years as opposed to Unionists? The argument is moot, but it is facile because the duty in section 75 would inform the DPP's decisions, but not in a way that would demerit them.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a matter not of quotas but of preventing individuals being mistreated on the basis of prejudice? That is at the core of the new clause. To interpret it any more pedantically is to miss the point. Exactly the same criticisms could be made of sections 75 and 76. It is not viable to argue that such measures are okay for the areas already dealt with by those sections but not for those in the new clause.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The last point that I want to make on the matter is that we can take all types of hypotheses to absurd extremes. However, I have no desire to do that. The way in which the legislation is perceived in Northern Ireland is important. The omission of the agencies dealing with justice from the section 75 requirement on equality will be noticed. The moot points that have been made will not be considered elsewhere. The question will be asked, ''If this is a new system of justice, with a whole new approach, why, of all the agencies in Northern Ireland, including the Government, who will be subject to section 75, do those that deal with justice escape the net?'' Many will come to the conclusion that the process of justice escapes all the requirements, and they will ask why.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

It may be helpful to restate the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, which are not well understood in Northern Ireland. That Act guarantees a fair trial, but through article 14 of the European convention it also guarantees a fair trial without discrimination on the grounds of sex, religion, creed or any other status. Article 14 is a wonderfully useful aspect of the Act and is combined with the article that guarantees a fair trial. Those provisions are already in Northern Ireland legislation, and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh may draw some consolation from the fact that the statute book will provide for a fair trial without discrimination, even if we do not include his provision in the Bill.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

That is a valid point, but the perception will be important. That point is not confined to Northern Ireland. We should always have it in mind that something remarkable is happening and will continue to happen: the Good Friday agreement is rightly becoming a template for conflict resolution in other parts of the world. It has been used in various places, and everything that derives from it-the work on policing, the criminal justice review, the arrangements and the institutions-will be part of that template. I do not want the Bill to be defective because of the omission that I have identified or to be perceived as defective in Northern

Ireland or-this will become much more important-more widely.

However, I respect the Minister and his judgment. I hope that I am not being pedantic or straining to read this into his comments, but he tells me that he will have another look at the issue. As he feels that it is worth another look, I shall not press the motion to a vote. It will have to be discussed again, and more convincing arguments for its inclusion will have to made and will be made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 6 - Eligibility for appointment as

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is straightforward and would exclude from appointment as a court security officer, pursuant to clause 78, any person who has

''at any time in Northern Ireland or elsewhere been convicted of a criminal offence.''

As the Bill stands, those with criminal convictions will be eligible for appointment as court security officers.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the aims of the criminal justice review, as set out in the Belfast agreement and repeated at the beginning of the review. Those aims include delivering

''a fair and impartial system of justice to the community''

and, importantly, ensuring that the justice system has

''the confidence of all parts of the community''.

Throughout our consideration of the Bill, I have tried to ensure that all sections of the community will have confidence in the criminal justice system. I tried to ensure that those with criminal convictions would not be eligible for appointment to important bodies such as the Judicial Appointments Commission, the lay magistracy and-I dealt with this as recently as Tuesday-the local community safety partnerships. I have been disappointed to date and I have worked in vain to secure confidence in all aspects of the judicial review procedure, but I am giving the Minister one last chance to assure us that those with criminal records will not be eligible for appointment as court security officers.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I rise briefly to support the new clause. It seems eminently sensible that people charged with court security should not have a criminal record. It is not the equivalent of employing bouncers through a security firm, when different standards might apply. It is an important part of the judicial process, and the hon. Member North Down is right that we should have confidence in it.

The standards of recruiting to the armed services have gone up and down from time to time; the Army, for example, has had to reflect on the fact that, although recruits may have convictions for drug or other minor offences, they should no longer be a bar to joining the Army. Although I endorse the general approach of the new clause, I recall that 30 per cent. of the male population has acquired a criminal conviction-I do not know what the figure is for Northern Ireland. However, the Minister may advance pragmatic arguments about the nature of the court service and the sort of people who are likely to be recruited as court security officers.

I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response, because if I am right, a clear case can be made for some form of gradation. However, that would need a rather more sophisticated provision than the hon. Lady's new clause. If the Minister advances arguments on practicality, we shall need to return to the subject later. We shall need to be clear as to exactly what offences would be acceptable if people with criminal records were to be considered as court security officers.

The new clause is simple and straightforward, and its guiding principle should be our starting point. I look forward to hearing the Minister's objections. If they are practical, they will merit consideration, but the Government will have to come forward with a rather more sophisticated version of new clause 6.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

A wise man once said that, simply because a person has a past does not mean that he cannot have a future. Once again, I am sympathetic to the sentiments of the new clause. Will guidelines be put in place on what those recruiting such individuals should watch out for-a case could be made that repeat offenders should not be considered-or does the Minister feel that such matters could be adequately dealt with in the recruitment procedure?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire paraphrases the words of the wise man. He also paraphrases the Leader of the Opposition, who not long ago used the same words in the context of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for North Down seems to think that my only merit is that of consistency. I shall nevertheless remain consistent to the position that I have adopted throughout in relation to amendments of this nature. As she said, the new clause seeks to bar anyone with any sort of criminal conviction obtained at any time from employment in the court security service. It is the Government's view that that is too restrictive. If a formula such as the one suggested by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) can be drafted, the hon. Lady might take that view herself. However, I suspect that it is the difficulty of trying to do that without being too restrictive that compels her to seek a blanket ban.

I have not sought specific advice on the matter. My understanding is that, if a serving police officer in Northern Ireland were to accumulate a comparatively minor conviction-I shall give examples of what I consider to be a minor conviction in a minute-it would not necessarily lead to consequential dismissal. At the moment, a police officer who has a minor

conviction is not barred from providing security in a court. It seems inconsistent if, going by my unresearched understanding of the status quo, that remains the status quo. It is certainly the position in Scotland, and I know from experience that serving police officers were often sent to work in the courts after they had accumulated such convictions or disciplinary marks. I have worked closely with people who have policed courts having transgressed some disciplinary code and collected a minor conviction. There is no history of minor convictions and minor transgressions of disciplinary codes preventing people from doing that sort of work. I would be concerned, in the context of the Bill, if that were introduced.

Prospective court service employees and contractors complete a form that requires them to declare any conviction that they or their employees have. The court service has discretion as to whether to act on that information. In line with the Northern Ireland civil service guidelines, the court service would not employ someone with a conviction that was incompatible with his duties. The Committee might like to have access to those guidelines; I can make them available to anyone who would like to see them. However, in certain cases-I have experience of this in practice in Scotland, if not in Northern Ireland-for example, in relation to a conviction for a minor motoring offence, the court service would use its discretion. The new clause would remove that discretion and, with it, what has been seen as useful flexibility in the area.

I suggest that everyone, including the hon. Lady, would agree that it would be ineffective to tie the hands of the court service in that fashion. The policy is in line with that applied in England and Wales, where the Lord Chancellor's Department uses its discretion when employing staff with convictions, including court security officers. I can assure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Reigate that individuals with inappropriate convictions will not be employed as security officers.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Will the Minister confirm that an inappropriate conviction will be a conviction for a scheduled offence?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, we have heard that a number of people in Northern Ireland have already accumulated what can be described as scheduled offence convictions because of the way in which they parked their vehicles. I have not researched that, but I accept that it is true; it was not questioned by those with greater knowledge of the history of Northern Ireland than I have. I cannot, therefore, give the hon. Gentleman that confirmation.

However, I can say that in deciding whom to employ in these jobs, serious regard will be given to the nature of the convictions and each case will be dealt with on its merits. All the provisions that apply to all prospective employees in all circumstances will be applied to people who apply for those jobs; they will be dealt with in relation to the equality provisions as they apply to the court service and their rights will be

respected in line with the Human Rights Act 1998. In addition, security considerations will be uppermost in the minds of those who make the decisions. I have not a jot of concern that inappropriate people will get the jobs. In order to ensure that people whose pasts are inappropriate for security in courts are not employed, I do not think that we need to try inexpertly-it will turn out to be inaccurately as well-to designate and delineate certain types of people as disqualified from such jobs.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

My point relates to the subject of assuring those in Northern Ireland that inappropriate people will not be employed in such positions. A parking offence may formerly have been a scheduled offence, but it is unlikely that a person would be sentenced to imprisonment for it. It is not beyond the wit of the Committee to phrase a new clause to deal with scheduled offences that lead to conviction and imprisonment for a certain time. That would clearly reflect the seriousness of the offence. The Minister could phrase an assurance in such a way, because those in Northern Ireland seek an assurance that inappropriate people, especially those with a paramilitary background, will not provide security in courts.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The hon. Gentleman seeks to make me try to say what would be almost impossible in a form that would stand the test of time. Where does the concern that such people will be employed in the security service come from? Where is the practice by the Northern Ireland Court Service to suggest to anyone that such people will be so employed?

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I appreciate the Minister giving way, as he invited someone to say where the concern came from. It comes from the recommendation of the Patten report that district policing partnership boards, as they were formerly titled, could buy in additional policing services. At the time, it was well known that paramilitary organisations were forming themselves into private security firms so as to provide additional policing services. Since then, there has been concern that paramilitary organisations will continue to turn themselves into nicely named private security organisations and will turn up in nice uniforms to provide security at courts.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The Bill does not lend itself to the realisation of that concern. I give the unequivocal assurance that great care will be taken to ensure that people with inappropriate convictions are not given the jobs. If the hon. Lady accepts that assurance, she might agree to withdraw the motion. If she insists on pressing it, I shall resist it.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

Given the way in which the Minister tackled the matter, I was not sure that he would deal with scheduled offences, which the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned.

I want to speak against the new clause, partly from the experience of serving on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and at one stage sharing a room with 20 paramilitary loyalist ex-prisoners who between them had many scheduled offences. They worked closely in the days before the Belfast agreement on how to involve themselves in the

development of the peace process. I am sure that many of those people could not and should not be trusted. A couple of them have reoffended and associate themselves with the Red Hand Defenders and other such groups.

The overwhelming attitude of those ex-prisoners was, as one of them suggested, that he did not want his children to grow up in the society in which he had grown up. In that community, many had felt that they had no alternative but to commit actions that were outside the law. They had felt required to defend their views and their community. Whether or not one agrees that that was necessary, it was at least some people's opinion. Those people were working for a discontinuity in society in Northern Ireland, so that what was once deemed necessary by quite a large number of people would eventually be seen to be unnecessary by the community as a whole. Although some of the people in that room should not be trusted with responsible positions in Northern Ireland society, some have gone on to hold such positions and have worked with passion, commitment and intellectual dedication to the peace process. It is right that they should hold some of those positions in Northern Ireland society.

In arguing against the amendment, I am telling the hon. Member for North Down and those who might support her that perhaps the thinking behind the Belfast agreement involved recognising that something had been broken and needed to be mended. Part of that process of mending is to accept that some of those who thought that violent behaviour was necessary in the past could be implicated in the development of a society where violent behaviour would not in future be thought justified or necessary.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a very important part of the debate. One of the most difficult things about the Good Friday agreement for all of us is, was and will be the inclusivity that it requires. That was obvious from the first day of negotiations. Many of us will never forget the first time we were in that room where there were political parties, paramilitary groupings, Governments and everyone else. Inclusivity is difficult, and that will not change. It will not get easier. However, it will-and already has-put distance between what is happening and what happened before.

The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who is not here at present, said something pertinent a few days ago; she said that legislation is about the future. Already, remarkably, I have found, while working with young people as I do regularly, that a section of the young population is growing up without the memory of violence. It is strange for us, but they do not remember it. It has not been a part of their lives, whereas it was always part of the lives of my generation. Those young people see things differently. Time and the future will look after the issue, and it is important for us to allow that to happen.

I want to comment on the implication that, somewhere or other, paramilitaries are sitting

looking at the advertisement columns in the Belfast Telegraph or The Irish News to discover which hugely well-paid job in the Court Service might be available to them. From my experience of paramilitaries or ex-paramilitaries in the north of Ireland, they would not deign to consider working for the kind of salary that would be on offer. That applies to all paramilitary groupings.

The era of paramilitant involvement, with prison sentences served, is being left behind. We need to think about what will happen in the future if, as the Minister rightly said, we use the constraints of the legislation in relation not to what might happen but to what is past and done, and will not-in my view and, I do not doubt, everyone else's-happen again. I envisage no great queue of paramilitaries or ex-paramilitaries wanting to don the uniform of a prison service security officer, because they have ways of making much more money than any of us could ever dream of.

In essence, the Minister is right. I know why the hon. Member for North Down tabled the new clause. We had similar discussions during consideration of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and we continue to debate such issues in relation to the district policing partnerships and Policing Board, but we must deal with the society that exists in Northern Ireland, not the society that we would like to have or the one that we keep contriving, because, in many ways, it is being artificially contrived.

It is not right to try to contrive a society or to draft legislation on that basis. Although the fears that the hon. Member for North Down expressed were legitimate, the provision will not have the effect that she envisages. If one or two people with previous convictions were seriously to regard serving the community in that way, as part of their new way of life, would not more be gained than lost? That is a different scenario from the one painted by the hon. Lady. She was right to the extent that I know of security companies being set up by an amalgam of tinpot Hitlers whom one would not allow into any organisation, but they were not intending to serve the community; they wanted another means of imposing their weight on the community while making another bag of money as a security firm. That is different, but I would not worry about the occasional person who wanted to leave behind his paramilitary past out of a genuine desire to serve the community. In fact, I would welcome that. The more that people who have had that sort of unfortunate past move into a different mode, the more we will succeed in what we are collectively trying to do.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Looking at the new clause, I have no difficulty supporting its underlying emphasis and aim. More often than not during the past few weeks, the Minister has not convinced me of his rationale, but he is coming close in his opposition to new clause 6. I am struck by the level of offence and the length of time after conviction to which the new clause would apply. Irrespective of how relatively minor the offence committed, the new clause would debar the person from consideration. For that reason, I support the emphasis of the new clause, but I fully understand the

Minister's explanation as regards people who otherwise might be considered for other positions but debarred from this one.

I must comment on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. Sometimes, in the rarefied atmosphere of Westminster, it may be relatively easy to become detached from what is happening in Northern Ireland. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intentionally wanted to be detached from that reality, but he succeeded when he suggested that some young people growing up now might not remember the violence. In the past three years, there has been a massive increase in paramilitarism and a horrendous increase in punishment beatings. A bomb went off in my constituency at the weekend, very seriously injuring a security officer-and that was not the first, second, third or fourth such incident. Numerous attacks have taken place.

In the past three years, the violence has not improved but got worse-not directly as a result of the Belfast agreement, but that has certainly not improved matters. I have spoken so far of the violence alone, but the sense of isolation is another factor in many communities in Northern Ireland.

I shall wait to see whether the hon. Member for North Down will withdraw her new clause in the light of the Minister's remarks, or if the Minister is prepared to contemplate rewording it. From what he said, and in the interests of retaining the consistency to which he alluded, I do not imagine that he will do that.

In conclusion, I repeat that I have empathy with the underlying emphasis of the new clause. However, I draw attention to the fact that, if the clause were to succeed, a person who had been convicted of a criminal offence would not be eligible to be employed as a court security officer. In contrast, the Belfast agreement, from which the review has emanated, would put such people into the Government of Northern Ireland.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am not at all surprised that the Minister has not changed his position-in fact, I would have been amazed had he done so. I expected him to be consistent in his arguments, and he has proved me right in that respect.

By tabling the new clause, I wanted the Minister to address the serious issue of gaining the confidence of all parts of the community, which is a central aim of the review. In that context, it was worth opening a discussion about whether all sections of the community would have confidence in court security officers who have previous convictions. I also wanted to extract from the Minister a guarantee that persons who apply to be court security officers will be vetted, and he gave a generous reassurance on that point.

It is worth mentioning an argument against the new clause. I am perfectly aware that the vast majority of people who have been involved in terrorist activities have never been convicted of those activities, so would not fall within the remit of the new clause.

I appreciate the comments of the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) and for Newry and Armagh, and the fact that on this rare occasion I have the support of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell)-in principle. However, he, too, gave the understanding that the Minister's reassurances would appease-if that is the right word-him and would reassure him that court security officers would be vetted. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 81 - Excepted matters: judicial office-holders

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I rise to speak about this clause only because it refers to the issues surrounding the distinction among excepted, reserved and transferred matters, which have periodically exercised the Committee. It is incumbent upon me to explain, given some the questions that have been asked, although I will address some of those questions later.

The review recommended that the appointment and removal of judicial office holders should be devolved. The Northern Ireland Assembly cannot legislate about the appointment or removal of specific judicial office holders, because it is an excepted matter under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The clause provides for the appointment and removal of judicial office holders to become a reserved matter in preparation for the transfer by order of those powers from Westminster to the Northern Ireland Assembly once responsibility for justice matters is devolved, as recommended by the review.

Hon. Members will appreciate that it is not possible to devolve matters to the devolved Administration by order under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 from the excepted category directly to the transferred category. An order can only devolve reserved matters, so the clause provides for the appointment and removal of judges to be recategorised as a reserved matter.

The review recommended that judges' salaries should continue to be fixed by reference to their equivalents in England and Wales, which are within the remit of the Senior Salaries Review Board. As a result, remuneration, superannuation and other terms and conditions of holders of judicial offices-other than those relating to removal from office-are to remain an excepted matter. Determination of the salaries of the president and other members of the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland is, however, the responsibility of the department of finance and personnel, and will remain so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 82 and 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 - Repeals and revocations

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 121, line 41, at end insert-

'In Schedule 2, the entry relating to the Lord Chief Justice's Office.'.

The amendment provides that the Lord Chief Justice's office will no longer be a department of the Supreme Court within the meaning of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The amendment is consistent with the review recommendation, reflected in clause 13, that the Lord Chief Justice should have a wider role, covering the judiciary and the magistracy, instead of just the Supreme Court. It is a positive signal of the Government's intent that the office of Lord Chief Justice should embrace the whole judicial service.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I should just place it on record that it is a pity that we were not able to debate clause 13.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Interpretation

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 67, line 30, at end insert 'and'.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 79.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The clause provides for the interpretation of a number of terms used in the Bill and includes a definition of the term ''magistrates court''. However, it is already defined in schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which applies to the Bill. The amendment removes the definition of ''magistrates court'' from clause 86 as it is not considered to redefine the term for the purposes of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 79, in page 67, line 32, leave out from '(c. 23)' to end of line 34.-[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 - Transitionals and savings

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move amendment No. 209, in page 67, line 39, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment and the subsequent one refer to the new office and the new role of the DPP. It has been touched on in debate at various times and in various ways. I regard the clause as crucial and the amendment as an important one.

Derek Conway (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman develops his theme, let me say that I am happy to group with amendment No. 290 amendment No. 291, in clause 87, page 68, line 13, leave out subsection (4). Both amendments stand in his name, and he will be able to broaden his comments.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you, Mr. Conway. The purpose of the amendments is shared.

The review group, whose recommendations we have considered, expressly recommended the establishment of a new, independent prosecution service, with new arrangements for prosecutions and new measures to ensure its accountability. In paragraph 4.174, it foresaw that the implementation of its recommendations would entail

''building upon the responsibilities and work of the existing Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions.''

However, it underlined that it would also involve

''taking on new work, a different approach to aspects of its existing work and substantial organisational change.''

The review group went on to make recommendations about how the new Public Prosecution Service would be staffed and organised to ensure that it would be able to discharge its duties. Those duties include the appointment of the DPP and his deputy through open competition before a selection panel, in accordance with procedures established by the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland in recommendation 59 of the criminal justice review. Subsection (2) defers the implementation of that important recommendation until some unspecified time in the future. It is worth considering it in detail, because it is not only contrary to the spirit of the review's recommendation but it is ill-defined, so implementation will probably not take place for some time.

The existing DPP might become the new DPP under the new dispensation. Let us assume that he or she is appointed at 35 years of age. That would give him or her ample time to have obtained 10 years' experience. It could therefore be 30 years before that crucial part of the recommendations would be implemented, notwithstanding the possibility that the Attorney-General might extend the period of tenure for the DPP past the age of 65, in which case it could take longer. That point might be a little over-stated, but it is true. We should not agree to defer the implementation of that crucial recommendation.

We do not know who the DPP or the deputy DPP will be when clause 31 comes into force. Whoever it is, the review's recommendation will not be implemented until one or other of those people reaches the statutory retirement age of 65, which may be extended by the Attorney-General. I find that most unsatisfactory because the new beginning and approach of the DPP will be the flagship for the Bill. It will be the flagship for the entire project of establishing a criminal justice system that will command the respect and allegiance of all. If that flagship does not leave port until some point way down the line, the entire project will be damaged.

If my hypothesis is right, I will not live to see the new dispensation in operation, and neither will many hon. Members present. Nevertheless, it is the crucial element of change in the Bill. The clause does not stand up, and should be amended. I made that point in a previous debate and I make it again today. We have already debated the review group's recommendation that the appointment of the DPP should be through open competition before a selection panel in

accordance with procedures established by the Civil Service Commissioners in Northern Ireland. When does that apply? Does it apply to the DPP who is in place and would become the new DPP? It will not happen for some time.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I think that my hon. Friend will find the unequivocal answer in subsection (2), and that he wants to omit that subsection because the existing DPP and deputy DPP would otherwise remain in office.

I invite my hon. Friend to address his comments to a more general point. He may agree that the transition cannot be made immediately, but it must not take so long that hon. Members will not be here to see it. Can he suggest how an achievable time frame could be fixed in statute?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for recognising that there is a problem. I am speaking off the cuff, but one way would be for the DPP and deputy DPP to resign formally at implementation, as has happened elsewhere, so that the process recommended in the review can be applied-that is, open competition under the Civil Service Commission procedure. The DPP and deputy DPP may be reappointed but at least the recommendation would have been applied, or better qualified and more suitable people may be appointed, in which case it would be doubly necessary for the recommended procedure to apply.

The Minister would be right to ask about natural justice. Natural justice for the DPP and deputy DPP must be considered, but we are discussing the flagship that will build up support, and if that takes upwards of 30 years, 20 years or even 15 years it will be deficient.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am concerned that there is an inconsistency, which must be highlighted. We are all interested in the transition taking place as quickly as possible, but, other than the current DPP and deputy DPP, who has the expertise necessary to ensure that the transition in Northern Ireland takes place as efficiently and quickly as possible? Who else has the experience of the system in Northern Ireland that will be essential to ensure that the transition takes place speedily and efficiently?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

The Minister makes a valid point, but what is most important? I do not want the DPP or his deputy to be turfed out of their jobs, but there are various ways of making the transition. A Chief Constable aided the transition in the Police Service by announcing that he would retire. That is not an exact analogy, but does the Minister agree that a long wait for the most important part of the legislation to be operable and seen to be operable will have a substantial effect on reaction to the entire Bill?

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I thank my hon. Friend for his patience yet again. The analogy that he draws with the Chief Constable is strong and good. There is no question but that the successful transition to the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been greatly aided by the significant expertise and ability that the Chief

Constable has brought to the job. He knew where the force would be, and he knew where he wanted it to go. We are all grateful to him for the way in which he assisted. We need to keep such abilities in the system to ensure the transition. The other important aspect of the analogy is that it is a decision for him when and if he retires.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I do not dispute the essence of the point that the Minister makes. Perhaps we could have avoided the impasse had some previous amendments been taken a little more seriously, but that did not transpire.

The far-reaching proposals for the new prosecution service were expected to be implemented rapidly. Many see the early and complete introduction of the new arrangements as a fundamental and crucial test of the determination of the Government to create a criminal justice system that can command the support of all. Page 33 of the implementation plan states that the new

''arrangements will apply to appointments taking place after devolution''.

However, nothing in the criminal justice review suggests that they should be deferred until then. On the contrary, the review group specifically referred to the need for a new approach for substantial organisational change. Subsection (2) is an example of selective implementation of the recommendations, and should be removed.

Following your ruling, Mr. Conway, I would like to make observations on amendment No. 291, which would leave out subsection (4), the provisions of which cast grave doubt on the commitment to break with the past and introduce real change to the prosecution service. Subsection (4) will allow the service to defer indefinitely the full implementation of one of the key recommendations of the report. It will allow the DPP-in all probability, barring natural wastage, it will be the DPP who was in place before the change-to comply only partially with the duty to take over the conduct of criminal prosecutions from the police. It is a fundamental weakness that he has to consider whether it is ''reasonably practicable'' for him to do so.

One of the Minister's arguments for the transfer of the existing DPP into the post is that it would provide continuity. One assumes that in the intervening period the administrative procedure and work would have taken place, and that the loose term ''reasonably practicable'' should not apply. Under the Bill, the DPP can fulfil as much or as little of the duty as he wants. It will be entirely for him to decide when he is prepared to comply with his statutory duties, which is bound to be unsatisfactory in every sense.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

The provision is qualified by reasonable practicability. It is not a carte blanche for the director not to do what he is required to do under the other provisions; it gives him the necessary flexibility, under a programme that is rolling out, to take on responsibility for the work from the police service as and when it is practicable and reasonable to do so.

What my hon. Friend says is right; in fact, progress has already been made on preparations for the roll-out, and we expect that they will be well advanced by the end of next year. I can give the Committee and others who need it reassurance that there will be considerably more detail in the new implementation plan that we will publish after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Yes, but that is not compatible with the recommendation of the review group. Recommendation 17, which is about the prosecution service, is unambiguous:

''in all criminal cases . . . responsibility for determining whether to prosecute and for undertaking prosecutions should be vested in a single independent prosecuting authority.''

However, the provision allows the DPP the latitude to determine whether it is reasonably practical and allows him to take on as much or as little as he decides. That is indicated by the wording of subsection (4), which is worth a read in the interests of the English language, if nothing else:

''If on the coming into force of subsection (1) of section 32 it is not reasonably practicable for the Director to comply with the duty imposed by that subsection to its full extent, until it is reasonably practicable for him to do so that subsection is to be taken to impose on him a duty to take over the conduct of such descriptions of the proceedings specified in that subsection as it is reasonably practicable for him to conduct.''

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

It is clear.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

It is as clear as can be. The subsection says, in a convoluted way, that the new DPP will implement the crucial element of the measure when he decides that it is reasonably practicable to do so.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

My hon. Friend's ability to paraphrase the subsection clearly, if not in legislative language, demonstrates just how well written it is. I understand his arguments, but the review recommendations must be turned into practical reality. Who should make the decision?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I had always thought that we would decide some of the important aspects as part of the legislative process rather than leaving a crucial element such as this to the DPP. The Minister knows that the measure is also contrary to the report's recommendation on when the new arrangements should be introduced.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am following the discussion with interest. At present, the DPP is responsible for about a quarter of the prosecutions, which are for serious offences. That is the practical reality. At the moment, some three quarters of prosecutions are the responsibility of the police, nearly all for minor offences. We shall go through a period of transition when the DPP takes responsibility for all of those. The clause simply puts a practicality test on the least important prosecutions currently conducted by the police with regard to when the bulk of that work can be taken over by the DPP. It enables the transfer of functions and the devolution of justice to happen earlier than would be the case if the practical transfer were not yet possible because the DPP did not have the resources to make those decisions and take on all those cases.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I take the point, but is it not much more important that we recognise recommendation 30 of the review group on timing? It states:

''the timing of commencement of legislation that will flow from our recommendations''-

that means what we have been doing for the past three weeks-

''should be planned so as to ensure that all necessary resources, preparation and training are in place and completed before procedural changes are introduced.''

Are we satisfied that that recommendation is being met and shall be met? Are those of us charged with producing the legislative changes satisfied that our time frame and the time frame to be given to the incumbent DPP will not be restricted by the open-ended way in which the new DPP-who will be the old DPP-can decide about when it is reasonably practical to take on all prosecutions, including those now dealt with by the police? The Minister might have some views on that, and I shall be interested to hear them.

The implementation plan openly envisages that

''the new service will extend its role on an incremental basis''.

When I see phrases such as ''incremental basis'' in implementation plans, I wonder about the speed at which matters will operate. I have seen implementation plans promise incremental change before, and speed was not then of the essence.

I believe that the provision is a flaw in the Bill and that it is not what the review group recommended. I ask that we change it so that we have full and speedy implementation of the new arrangements for conducting prosecutions. We expect the necessary resources to be made available for that to happen. That is the minimum requirement if people are to believe that there is real change in the system. We do not want delay, nor do we want piecemeal implementation. Subsection (2) is, in many ways, an open invitation to those who want to resist change, which some people want, including some in the justice system. To leave things as they are, under the pretence that a new dispensation is taking place, will be fatal to the entire project's prospects of success.

I believe that we who are charged with drawing up the legislation should make decisions that do not allow lax, open-ended, arbitrary, incremental decisions to be made by someone given the absolute authority to implement a crucial, core element of the Bill.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

A detailed case has made for the big bang theory, for having a day-zero start date for prosecutions by installing a new Director of Public Prosecutions and transferring the responsibilities lock, stock and barrel on one particular day. That is what the Crown Prosecution Service experienced in England and Wales, and it is not an experience that I invite the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to take to Northern Ireland.

The test will be between delay and piecemeal implementation, and the hon. Gentleman will not be able to meet both the objectives that he set himself by saying that we do not want either. A sensible, practical approach will have to be taken to handing over full

responsibility for all cases to the new DPP. The Government are right to be fully aware of the findings of the Glidewell report. If we do not learn from our experiences, there is not much point in having them. We should not repeat the mistakes that have been made in other jurisdictions.

I anticipate that the Minister will resist the amendment. I understand the philosophical point that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to make about the need for a new start. I do not wholly share the sentiments behind the amendment, but I understand part of the argument. No one has suggested any inadequacy in the present DPP in Northern Ireland. No one has ever made that suggestion to me. I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman is not making that suggestion-

Mr. Mallon indicated dissent.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. We are dancing on the head of a pin. The Bill will deliver the objectives that we all seek without the amendment. I hope that he will withdraw it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is aware of this, but from where I sit the window is behind him when he stands to speak. I therefore see a silhouette bathed in an almost spiritual light. I hesitate to tussle with a saint. I have faith in the hon. Gentleman, but I am more agnostic about the text. Was religion ever otherwise?

The hon. Member for Reigate expressed concern about the big bang theory. Knowing something about astronomy, I know that the alternative is the steady state theory, where nothing ever changes. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned that, as things stand, the new start of which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has often spoken could be delayed. Nevertheless, I am persuaded by the Minister's intervention that there needs to be some opportunity to sustain continuity in the DPP's office. Indeed, subsection (4) allows some flexibility with

regard to when the new provisions should come into effect.

As the hon. Member for Reigate said, the philosophical standpoint expressed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is consistent with his previous statements and is robust. None the less, on the basis of other experience, I feel that the new start will not be unduly compromised by the built-in flexibility. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I note what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire says. I know that he has an interest in and knowledge of astronomy, but I found it mildly amusing to have a Liberal Democrat talk about a steady state. I am sure that his understanding of it has been of no political assistance to him.

Amendment No. 209 would remove the provision that would continue the appointment of the current Director and Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in the new Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Reigate, I understand the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh that the new prosecution service should represent a completely fresh start with new personnel. I understand why he makes those arguments, although I do not agree with all his reasons. What my hon. Friend suggests is not practicable or desirable.

The department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is a new department and, as the hon. Member for Reigate noted, it will be going through a massive expansion. It will also be taking on a large range of new functions. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Reigate, the knowledge and experience of the current director and deputy director will be crucial in ensuring that the change is successful.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee F

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I want to state my regret that our sitting runs simultaneously with a debate that relates to Northern Ireland business in Westminster Hall. Other members of the Committee would like to attend those proceedings, but I am duty bound to do so. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that I shall be absent.

If there are channels that you can use to highlight this unsatisfactory situation, Mr. Pike, I hope that you will bring it to the attention of the business managers so that, if possible, they can show due regard to avoiding such a double booking in future.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

As you will realise, Mr. Öpik, that is not strictly a point of order for the Chair. However, I will certainly make the Leader of the House aware of it. As a member of the Liaison Committee, I can say that Select Committees choose Thursday sittings in Westminster Hall for their debates. The view of the Leader of the House has been that the usual channels should not be involved in those decisions.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Before the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) leaves the Room, I should bring it to the Committee's attention that the Leader of the House, in his business statement earlier today, made it clear that the Bill would have only one day for its final stages on the Floor of the House. You will be aware that, whatever progress we make this afternoon—I certainly expect that we will reach the end of the Bill—the Committee will not have considered 36 clauses of the Bill or seven schedules to it.

That situation is much to be regretted. It is a product of not only the outline programme approved by the House to finish today at 5 o'clock, but of the knives that the Government chose to put into the programme motion. We are likely to have spare time this afternoon in which it will be impossible to revisit the clauses that we did not have a chance to debate. I hope, Mr. Pike, that you can report to the Leader of the House, and that he will report to the Speaker, that this state of affairs is thoroughly unsatisfactory and needs urgent review.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

As you, too, will recognise, Mr. Blunt, that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, I shall ensure that your concerns are drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House. As a member of the Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, I know that that Committee will consider how programming works. I noted similar points to yours, Mr. Blunt, when I chaired the Committee that considered the Education Bill. The view of the Modernisation Committee and the whole

House is that we want to improve scrutiny of legislation. If we can improve the system, I hope that your point will be taken into context. You will appreciate that the Leader of the House is also the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) complained this morning that he could not revisit clause 13 in a debate on schedule 13, despite a reference in that schedule to that clause. Was his grievance in order or would it have been appropriate for him to express reservations about clause 13 during the debate on schedule 13?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

The Committee agreed to a programming motion at the outset of our sittings, and that has been varied at least once. I cannot make a retrospective decision about something that has already been decided. It can of course be revisited on Report, when hon. Members may want to move amendments to the clause or the schedule. However, I do not have the power to change the timetable that the Committee agreed to.

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 209, in page 67, line 39, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Mallon.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I remind the Committee that with this we may take amendment No. 291, in page 68, line 13, leave out subsection (4).

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Pike, for our afternoon's deliberations. When the Committee rose this morning we were debating amendment No. 209 and I had made the point, in an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), that we should be relying on the knowledge and expertise of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his deputy to lead the transition to the new dispensation, as I think my hon. Friend refers to it. As a Minister, I have every confidence in the current director and deputy director in Northern Ireland. That confidence is shared by the entire Government and the Attorney-General, who specifically asked to be associated with such an expression of confidence. Both those officers have discharged their responsibilities in the extremely difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland with complete professionalism and fairness.

Amendment No. 291 would remove the transitional provision that is designed to allow the DPP for Northern Ireland to roll out the new functions of the service incrementally by geographical area and class of case. We are fully committed to ensuring that there will be an orderly roll-out of the Public Prosecution Service's new functions. Standards in the administration of justice must be maintained throughout the relevant period, during which a massive programme of change will take place. The provision will be central to ensuring that the service has the confidence of the public and that it meets the test in relation to the review, which, helpfully, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) continually

reminds us about. Indeed, the review group noted that point in the report.

The Public Prosecution Service will have to increase in size significantly to meet the demands of its new functions. I can build on the contribution of the hon. Member for Reigate by giving the Committee the current projections for the service's work load. The service, which now considers about 11,000 case files a year—I appreciate that that is not the same as 11,000 prosecutions—will have to take on an estimated 80,000 case files. That is a daunting degree of change on any scale of measurement. The desire for care in the progress of the change is to be reflected in the management of it.

The staff needed to carry out the work must be recruited and thoroughly trained. Unfortunately, whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh way wish, that cannot be done overnight; nor, sensibly, can we guarantee a time within which such trained staff will be appointed. I do not think that it was implicit in his amendment that we should be able to do that, and I suspect that he understands that no such certainty can be given to a process that requires the recruitment and training of professional people to carry out this work. For good practical reasons, the process will have to take place incrementally, so that quality staff are recruited and trained at each stage before moving on to the next phase of expansion.

It is strange that those who are keen to draw to our attention the implications of the Glidewell report are so quick to want to remove this provision, which addresses concerns that they have expressed. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to recommendation 30, but he will see that on page 23 of the implementation plan the Government have coupled that recommendation with recommendation 66, which states:

''We recommend that those who are considering the resource implications and the organisational issues arising from our proposals in respect of the prosecution function should examine the Glidewell Report, with a view to seeing whether there are lessons to be learnt from the experience of England and Wales.''

The hon. Member for Reigate accurately summarised the principal lesson to be learned from the Glidewell report, which is that to try to achieve our aims in a kind of big bang, with a fresh start date, as a one off, was calculated to result in disaster.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

It is nice to see you back here this afternoon for our last sitting, Mr. Pike.

May I ask the Minister to address one matter that lies behind the subject that we are discussing? The media have called the provisions a new beginning to the criminal justice system but, if I recall correctly, the whole idea of the review was to modernise the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. I have a copy of the Minister's statement on 12 November 2001, in which he said:

''As one of the cornerstones of the Agreement, the review of criminal justice will deliver a modern, progressive and forward-looking system of justice for the people Northern Ireland.''

That was what I had understood was the aim from the criminal justice review. The expression, ''a new beginning'' sews the seeds of an expectation of a big-bang approach and that new people will be installed as director and deputy director, although that was not the intention of the review.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for emphasising the point that I sought to make, although perhaps not as explicitly as she has done. In her careful research, she may have read the comments that I have made repeatedly about this process: there is no implicit or explicit criticism of the criminal justice system in this process. Indeed, my understanding of the review was that it did not seek to criticise the status quo.

I have made it clear that the intention in modernising the system of criminal justice and pursuing objectives that would make the system more responsive to the modern appreciation of the needs of society, including the needs of children and victims, is to build on what exists, rather than to replace it. In the course of this short but important debate, I have tried to explain that we think it is worth building on, because it has great value. In respect of the director and deputy director, we feel that we have the right people in the right place to lead us through the transitional phase to a modern and greatly expanded Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland.

Let me close with a few remarks on the question of deadlines. Common sense shows, even without the benefit of the Glidewell report, that it would be impossible for the Government to set absolute deadlines for the completion of the process. The transitional arrangement that my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh seeks to remove from the Bill is designed to ensure that the expertise of the current office holders is available to carry us into the new service.

We are certainly not envisaging making any appointments before the clauses are commenced, but if a vacancy for either of the positions arises before devolution, appointments would be made by open competition, as such appointments are made at present. However, nobody is planning for such vacancies to arise and it is our hope and expectation that they will not and that we will be able to rely on the expertise and experience of those in post.

As I have already said, administrative arrangements are in hand to prepare the service for this transition. To have begun such arrangements was not presumption on the part of the Government, because however much the detail of the provisions needs to be debated, there is no opposition to them from any part of society in Northern Ireland or any political party. It was broadly expected that we would make the transition.

With open hands I offer to brief my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member on the progress that we are making with the preparation for the transition at any time, so that he can reassure himself that there is a proper timescale, work is being conducted at a proper rate and nobody is dragging their feet on the matter. In

the light of those assurances and in the face of those arguments I ask my hon. Friend, whom I know to be a man of great common sense, to withdraw the amendment.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

It would be churlish indeed of me, given the Minister's generous offer, to pursue the two amendments, but churlish I will be. I accept the sincerity of the Minister's assurances. There is no question that he is a man of his word. That is a rarity in political life nowadays.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

In my experience of political life I have found most Members of this House and other politicians to be men of their word—[Hon. Members: ''And women.'']—I meant that collectively. The hon. Member for North Down is looking daggers at me.

The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and I have made common cause on the issue of the prosecution supplying information to victims and being required to give reasons when it drops proceedings. That is a much more important issue than that of the practical transfer to the DPP and I hope that we will be able to continue to make common cause on it, because it concerns the accountability of the DPP.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I would not like the hon. Gentleman to think that I was implying that the Minister was the only honourable person in politics.

However, churlish I must be on this issue, because a lot of exaggeration is taking place. I did not recommend any big bangs—I do not see the Bill in terms of a big bang, nor would it be possible to implement it in those terms. I think that I made that clear. However, I do not want a series of little whimpers either, and the wording of the parts of the Bill affected by the amendments is not the stuff that legislation is made of. The Director of Public Prosecutions will consider when it is ''reasonably practical'' to comply with the duty and he will have control over when and to what extent he does so. I do not believe that that is how we should do things. There is an urgency about this matter and, because it is the flagship of the Bill, the situation should not be left in a state of limbo.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

Would my hon. Friend consider the fact that, historically, there has been a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland, which has meant that the control that Members of Parliament exert over those who implement legislation in England has sometimes been lacking in the Northern Ireland process for a series of reasons? With this new dispensation, there should be sufficient democratic control over the process of implementing legislation so that the fears that he expressed—fears that might have been justified when there was insufficient democratic control—should not exist in future.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I take the point that those fears should not exist. It is not so long ago that other hon. Members and I sat in a Committee Room like this one, dealing with a similar piece of legislation, the outcome of which tended to disprove the faith that my hon. Friend's comment reveals. I believe that he suffered as much as I did in that connection.

I am talking not about big bangs, but about tightening an essential piece of legislation and inserting some newness into it. I cast no aspersions on the DPP or deputy DPP. For the life of me I could not say who either of them is, so there is nothing personal in my amendment. However, there is something wrong because it might be 30 years before this part of the Bill is implemented, which is too long. Many of us in Committee would not even live to see that, yet it is the cornerstone of the whole new approach. There are ways, which have been applied before, of allowing natural justice to apply to the incumbent DPP or deputy DPP, while abiding by the recommendations in the criminal justice review. I emphasise that I have no lack of confidence in the DPP, but from experience, if I were the DPP or deputy DPP and heard such overt expressions of confidence from the Government and the Attorney-General, I would take a quick look in my filing cabinet to see where my P45 was.

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I urge the Committee to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 15.

Clause 88 - Statutory rules

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I beg to move amendment No. 302, in page 69, line 12, after '10(4)', insert 'or 71(1), (3), (7) or (8)'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 179, in page 69, line 12, after '10(4)', insert 'or 85(1)'.

Government amendment No. 303.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

During Tuesday evening's debate on clause 71, concern was expressed at the lack of detail coming before Parliament on the membership of local community safety partnerships. Amendment No. 302 will require the order that establishes community safety partnerships to be subject to affirmative resolution. That will afford an opportunity for further scrutiny when the Northern Ireland Executive's review of public administration is complete, and we are in a position to firm up partnership, membership and structures. Amendment No. 303 leaves clause 71(2) subject to negative resolution, because it deals only with the name change and it is not necessary to subject that to such anxious scrutiny. I ask that those amendments be made.

Amendment No. 179 would require every provision in the Bill to be commenced by affirmative order, which would be completely unprecedented. I suspect that the hon. Member for Reigate is using the amendment not to achieve that objective, but to debate it and other issues. The amendment would place an undue burden on Parliament and delay the implementation process by requiring every provision to be commenced by affirmative order. Where further parliamentary scrutiny is necessary, or desirable, we have provided for it, as illustrated by amendment No. 302.

I understand from the hon. Gentleman that amendment No. 179 is a probing amendment, although he may have changed his position and I do not bind him to it. My understanding, however, is that he seeks clarification on how the Bill's provisions will be commenced and how devolution will be organised. This might be a good opportunity to explain how the mechanics for transferring the Bill's provisions to the devolved institutions will work when the time comes. I trust, Mr. Pike, that you will consider such remarks to be in order. I believe that they are relevant to our debate. I understand hon. Members' uncertainty about how the Bill will work, and I hope to explain why it is drafted as it is. My explanation will take a little time, but I am sure that hon. Members will be grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate, at whose request I am making it.

Hon. Members will know that the division between what is devolved to Stormont and what is retained at Westminster is governed by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Broadly, everything is devolved—in the terminology of the 1998 Act it is ''transferred''—except those matters set out in schedules 2 and 3 to the Act. Schedule 2 contains ''excepted matters''. They deal with issues such as national security and will not be devolved under the scheme of the 1998 Act. Schedule 3 to the Act covers matters that are reserved. Those are currently dealt with at Westminster, although the Assembly could legislate on them with the consent of the Secretary of State.

Executive functions in relation to those matters lie with the Government.

Criminal justice matters are generally reserved. Under the original Northern Ireland Act provisions, judicial appointments were excepted matters. The review recommended changing that, and it was achieved under clause 81 of the Bill. Once a decision is taken to devolve matters from the reserved to the transferred field, a number of steps have to be taken to effect the change. Those steps are set out in sections 4 and 86 of the Northern Ireland Act. Section 4 provides that the Northern Ireland Assembly must first pass a resolution, with cross-community support, praying that the matter concerned should cease to be a reserved matter. The Government may then lay before Parliament a draft Order in Council to amend schedule 3 to the Act. That is effectively an affirmative resolution instrument. There will be prior consultation, and a debate in both Houses. If the Order in Council is approved by Parliament, Her Majesty may then make the order.

Once a matter has been moved from the reserved to the transferred field, the Assembly can pass Bills dealing with it without the approval of the Secretary of State. On its own, however, a section 4 order will not transfer existing executive functions to the devolved institutions. For that, we will use an order made under section 86 of the Northern Ireland Act. Section 86 orders are also Orders in Council. The Northern Ireland Act states that they may, among other things,

''make provision for transferring to a Northern Ireland authority, with effect from any date specified in the Order . . . any functions which immediately before that date are exercisable by a United Kingdom authority and appear to Her Majesty to be concerned with a matter which is a transferred matter''.

Once criminal justice has been devolved by an order made under section 4, a transfer of functions order made under section 86 will transfer specific powers from UK authorities to Northern Ireland authorities by name.

Consequential matters such as funding could also be covered by a section 86 order. Westminster will not provide funding for matters that are in the devolved field. References to funding being provided by Parliament will therefore disappear. That is why we did not set out in the Bill what the financial arrangements would be after devolution.

As it stands, the Bill includes a variety of provisions. Some may come into force before devolution and then be transferred, while others will come into force only after devolution. For the latter provisions—basically, the Judicial Appointments Commission and the new Law Officer arrangements—the Bill already sets out where functions will lie. The main political input from the Northern Ireland Administration will be from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—I shall say this quietly, in case the hon. Member for North Down intervenes on me—acting jointly.

In the case of provisions that may come into force before devolution, such as the prosecution service, the Law Commission and the criminal justice inspectorate, the Bill sets out how they will work before devolution. We decided not to include in the Bill provisions

explaining how things will work post devolution, for the very good reason that we do not know exactly what the post-devolution arrangements will look like. For example, the Executive might decide to create a department of justice—the issue is discussed in the review, where a recommendation is made—or split the responsibilities between two departments. We do not want the Bill to contain provisions that pre-judge decisions to be taken in consultation with the Northern Ireland parties at the proper time. Those who know the structure of the Executive in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, of those in Scotland and Wales, although I am not so familiar with Wales—will know that departments there do not reflect, in terms of responsibilities, the divisions that there are in Westminster. The Executive and the Assembly have the right to decide their own order of priority and their own arrangements.

As a result, the Bill is littered with references to the Secretary of State. I assure hon. Members that almost all of those will disappear on devolution by means of the section 86 transfer of functions order. The only references that will remain after devolution are those that concern the Secretary of State's remaining responsibilities. The only example is the reference to the Secretary of State's order- making power under clause 29(2), and some consequential references to the Secretary of State in the associated schedule 7.

We considered whether to include specific powers in the Bill setting out how devolution in this area should work. Although that might have had presentational advantages for the lay reader—if there is such a thing in relation to a Bill—we were keen not to duplicate the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which have a certain elegance and have been tried and tested in setting up devolution. To some degree, the provisions have their roots in many years' worth of consideration in Scotland, via the Scottish constitutional convention. Those of us who were in favour of devolution learned the lesson of an early attempt to devolve government to Scotland in a different way. This short history is for those who do not know what happened.

The previous attempt at a Scotland Act sought to list the functions that were being devolved in schedules to the Act. That occupied the Committee for endless, tedious hours, as people argued around the margins of the provisions. Attempts to introduce lists into the Bill inevitably created a lot of anomalies, and many things were left out. Our best endeavours to list what was transferred were unsuccessful. We learned that lesson and the provisions in the Scotland Act 1998 that are now, to some degree, reflected in the Northern Ireland Act, seek to devolve by reference not to the powers that are being transferred but to those that are being retained. That is a significantly smaller list, when it comes to individual functions.

I hope that that attempt at an explanation is of some help to the Committee and to all our lay readers, whoever they may be. I have endeavoured to address in a short time issues that have—rightly—exercised some members of the Committee, and I hope that I have made them clear.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I thank the Minister for his elegant explanation of the issues. I understand why he had to give it at this stage. It would have been helpful had I understood those issues before, however, because it would have saved me tabling a large number of amendments to delete the Secretary of State's name at various stages. None the less, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. He used the words ''certain elegance'' to describe previous Northern Ireland legislation, and I wonder whether that choice of words was suggested to him by advisers who had something to do with drafting the legislation in the first place.

The purpose of amendment No. 179 was to ensure that the House could express its view when the Government—whoever was in power at the time—made a devolution order. It is plain from the Minister's explanation that the Bill will achieve what I seek to achieve, so I shall not press my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 303, in page 69, line 15, leave out '71' and insert '71(2)'.—[Mr. Browne.]

Clause 88, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 89 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4 - Reserved matters: new institutions

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate for inspiring this new clause. It adds the criminal justice inspectorate and the Law Commission to the list of organisations in schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to which I referred when talking about devolution.

The new clause makes it clear that those bodies fall within the reserved field before the devolution of justice matters, and it will allow them to be transferred on devolution. It is essentially a technical measure, which is designed to facilitate the devolution of those bodies in due course and to respond to an issue raised by the hon. Gentleman by removing what confusion there may have been.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I should like to put on record my gratitude to the Minister for acknowledging that the new clause arose directly from our proceedings, which have, therefore, improved the Bill in a small way. We should remember that it is important to go through legislation comprehensively in Committee. It is impossible for any Government to be all-knowing at the beginning of a process, and the Committee has

played an important part in delivering the Bill. It is a matter of regret that we have been unable to examine all of it.

Question put and agreed to

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Des Browne (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I thank you, Mr. Pike, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Conway, for your obvious skill, your good humour and the light touch with which you have chaired our deliberations during the past three weeks. I also want to thank the Clerks of the House for their direction and supervision of our proceedings, both in Committee and in preparation for it. Many of us have cause to thank them. Once again, they have lived up to their enviable reputation for excellence. I also want to extend thanks to those who have so faithfully recorded our proceedings. They may largely be hidden, but their service is greatly appreciated and valued.

Despite the fact that we have dealt with some difficult and sensitive subjects—the temperature rose slightly on one occasion, but that matter has now been resolved—I am grateful for the way in which all members of the Committee have conducted themselves, and for the nature of our proceedings. I appreciate the contribution that hon. Members have made to our consideration and understanding of the Bill.

As the Committee draws to a close, it would be useful to state my appreciation for the way in which the Bill has generally been handled. Proceedings in Committee have borne out the assessment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who suggested on Second Reading that the vast majority of the provisions would be useful to the population of Northern Ireland as a whole and were recognised as such. There are obvious areas of strong disagreement, and I do not want to minimise them, but the Bill leaves the Committee with fairly widespread support. That is true of at least the principles that lie behind it, if not all its details.

There has been much discussion about time allocated for scrutiny, and I want to make a few points on that, as it would be inappropriate for me to leave the Committee without doing so. The Government's decision to allocate three weeks for scrutiny in Committee in the House of Commons was taken carefully in the light of the size of the Bill and the main aspects of dispute. I think that our proceedings largely bear out the Government's judgment, but I recognise that that view will not be shared throughout the Committee.

Of the Bill's 91 clauses, 59 have been scrutinised, as have nine of its 13 schedules. The debates have been full and careful. Indeed, our early rate of progress would have required about a day for each three clauses. I have not been aware that hon. Members have felt restricted by the debates and unable to put across points that they wanted to make.

Throughout the process, the Government have sought to smooth the Bill's passage. We did so first by ensuring that it was published in advance and in draft, to enable considerable pre-parliamentary scrutiny. Whatever one does in relation to such matters, it is always criticised for not being enough. However, compared to the level of scrutiny of some legislation introduced by previous Governments, the Bill's level of scrutiny has been unprecedented.

As a Minister, I have been responsible for the decisions that have led to an open and unprecedented approach on briefing the Opposition and others on the content of the Bill. I opened my offer to every political party with an interest in our proceedings. As a result, the Bill that we have examined has been in excellent shape. We have had to take up the Committee's time with only a relatively small number of technical Government amendments, especially considering the size and complexity of the Bill.

That pattern will continue on Report, when we again hope to introduce a limited number of Government amendments, some technical and others that reflect important points that have been raised in Committee and in the wider consultation process. We think it right that the onus is on the Government to deliver our side of the bargain by introducing legislation that is in good shape. That allows Parliament's time to be spent in proper scrutiny of the thinking behind the Government's proposals.

I regret that certain parts of the Bill were not reached during Committee. In addition to the broad programme motion agreed after Second Reading, the Programming Sub-Committee suggested several knives within the Committee proceedings. Those knives were designed to ensure scrutiny of all parts of the Bill. They are obviously an art rather than a science. The record will show that our programming proposals could have achieved even greater scrutiny of the Bill had circumstances been different. For example, our proceedings at the end of part 2 were unfortunately cut off, leaving several clauses unscrutinised. I spoke to Committee members—I will name them if necessary—who said that approximately 15 more minutes would have been sufficient to finish that part of the Bill. Unfortunately, a series of votes in the House meant that the Programming Sub-Committee was unable to reconvene in time, so we lost that 15 minutes by the coincidence of two successive votes in the House.

Similarly, I regret the failure to complete the scrutiny of part 4, in particular the important provisions on youth conferencing. I regret that especially because I believe that we could have completed part 4 and scrutinised parts 5 and 6 fully, had we been able to move the knife on Tuesday night, as was suggested. Agreement could not be reached on that issue. I regret that, and I am sure that my regret is shared by the Committee, not least by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who, judging from his contribution on Second Reading, had an important input to make.

I hope that all hon. Members will be able to return to the points missed on Report, when we shall endeavour to ensure that there is sufficient time to

give the Bill the scrutiny that it deserves. Time is at the Government's disposal, but the level of scrutiny relies, to a certain extent, on the level of co-operation. If hon. Members, in particular the official Opposition, wish to use Report to reiterate arguments about the programme motion rather than to focus on the Bill, no amount of time will be sufficient. We must look at the process of scrutinising Northern Ireland Bills, and I agree with you, Mr. Pike, on this issue. More parties are involved in the consideration of Northern Ireland Bills than in the consideration of other legislation. I will reflect further on the matter and bring any relevant points to the attention of the business managers. I am grateful to you, Mr. Pike, for saying that you will bring certain points to the attention of the Modernisation Committee.

I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions. Our deliberations in Committee will ensure that the Bill leaves the House in an even better state than it arrived. That is the purpose of the Standing Committee, and I welcome the achievement for which all hon. Members should take credit.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I shall make my comments in the reverse order to the Minister. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that he regrets that certain elements of the Bill have not been considered in Committee. I have already made several substantive points about the timetable, but want to put one or two more points on the record.

The official Opposition opposed the programme on the Floor of the House and voted against it. We opposed the programme motion that was presented to the Programming Sub-Committee when we arrived at 8.30, before the first sitting of the Committee, in order to discuss the knives that were imposed on our proceedings. That resulted in the farcical position of the Government coming to appreciate that they could have completed consideration of part 2, had the knife not been inserted where it was. They then had to make desperate efforts to get the knife moved in time, but their efforts were thwarted by two consecutive Divisions in the House. We should never have been in that position in the first place.

From the way in which the Minister conducted himself in this and in a previous Committee of which I was a member, I know that he takes his duties in presenting Government legislation extremely seriously, and also takes seriously the contributions of members of the Committee. In many ways, he is a model Minister. He has command of his brief and can respond properly to the issues raised. Therefore, it is wholly unsatisfactory that he should be unable to do justice to this legislation, because a great chunk of it has been insufficiently considered. By my calculations, 56 clauses were considered completely, 3 were considered partly and 32 were not considered at all.

The problem does not relate only to this Committee, but is an issue throughout the House. We have legislation by lottery, because it is a lottery whether legislation receives consideration in Committee. That is not good enough and all of us, as parliamentarians, must address that problem. I have said enough about that, but I do not hold the Minister personally responsible. He is a victim of the system, as

we all are. It is up to us, as Members of this House, to sort it out.

Moving on to more gracious territory, I commend you, Mr. Pike, and Mr. Conway, for the way in which you have chaired the Committee. I would also like to thank the Clerks, who have rendered enormous assistance to me and, I am sure, to all the other opposition parties. I would also like to commend everyone who has been involved in the process, from the review team onwards. Although this legislation involves substantial issues of principle and there are differences over it, it is much better because of the way in which it has been developed and the amount of time that has been available for consultation.

That consultation has not been sufficient at the end of the parliamentary process, but I want to thank the Government for making Stephen Webb and his team available to brief members of the Opposition. That was immensely useful, particularly for those of us who are not lawyers and who have to get up to speed on issues that are meant for lawyers rather than lay members of the House. Their time was much appreciated.

I also want to join the Minister in thanking those who have transcribed the proceedings. On one occasion, their work was immensely important and helpful, and I want to place on the record my thanks for that. I would also like to thank other members of the Committee for the way in which the Committee's business was dealt with in general. By and large it has been good natured and enjoyable, and if we had been able to give full consideration to the whole of the Bill, we would have done a proper job as parliamentarians. However, given the limits within which we have worked, I think that we have done so.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Before I put the final question I would like to put a few words on the record, because I have let both sides make longer than normal contributions for the end of a Committee. It is right that those comments be recorded in the spirit in which they have been made because they have been put forward constructively, from whichever viewpoint they have been made.

As I said in response to the earlier point of order this afternoon, the Modernisation Committee produced a report on Select Committees on Tuesday of this week. It is the intention of the Chairman of that Committee, who is the Leader of the House, to write to all Members of the House informing them of the recommendations made in that report. He will at the same time remind Members of the memorandum that he issued shortly before Christmas on proposals that will form the substantive programme of the Modernisation Committee during the next few months, and which concern major issues.

One of those issues will be programming. The Committee will understand that programming is governed not by Standing Orders, but by Sessional Orders, which are temporary. Clearly, the current arrangement is an experiment that is under review. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I am strongly in favour of the principle of programming. I accept that the matter must be considered in the light

of experience, and it will be useful to consider the comments that have been made today.

We can make the process work better and ensure that the House conducts its business in a more sensible way in the 21st century. We will also be able to ensure that the scrutiny of legislation is more positive and we achieve our objectives. Members are invited to make their comments to the Leader of the House, and I will see that the comments that were made at the beginning and the end of today's proceedings are conveyed to him. It is useful to have them recorded in Hansard.

I and my co-Chairman have enjoyed chairing this Committee. It has been interesting. I accept the thanks that have been offered to both of us and to all the others who have facilitated the proceedings, including the police, the attendants and the Clerks. Without such assistance, Committees could not function. I do not intend to drag out proceedings any longer, so I shall put the final question, which I am sure will be carried quite easily.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at twenty-nine minutes past Three o'clock.