Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 8 December 2005.

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill - Standing Committee B

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I welcome all Members, on this dull and depressing day, to the third sitting of the Committee. I believe that it is sensible of me, as it will be of my co-Chairman, to remind the Committee that, although there are no knives, scrutiny of the Bill must be completed by 4 o’clock on Thursday 15 December. We had a high-quality debate on Tuesday and I am sure that that will continue. I call the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) to move the amendment.

Clause 2 - Certification commissioner

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move amendment No. 178, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1)There are to be no less than three certification commissioners.’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 179, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

‘(1A)In making appointments the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the certification commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.’.

No. 198, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 222, in schedule 1, page 15, line 5, leave out ‘The’ and insert ‘A’.

No. 223, in schedule 1, page 15, line 19, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.

No. 224, in schedule 1, page 15, line 21, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.

No. 225, in schedule 1, page 15, line 26, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.

No. 226, in schedule 1, page 16, line 3, leave out ‘Commissioner’ and insert ‘Commissioners’.

No. 227, in schedule 1, page 16, line 4, leave out ‘Commissioner’s’ and insert ‘Commissioners’’.

No. 199, in clause 3, page 2, line 2, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 200, in clause 3, page 2, line 3, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 201, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 202, in clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out ‘him’ and insert ‘them’.

No. 203, in clause 3, page 2, line 7, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 204, in clause 4, page 3, line 20, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 205, in clause 4, page 3, line 22, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 206, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 207, in clause 4, page 3, line 26, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 208, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 209, in clause 4, page 3, line 30, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 210, in clause 4, page 3, line 31, leave out ‘he’ and insert ‘they’.

No. 211, in clause 4, page 3, line 35, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 212, in clause 4, page 3, line 42, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 213, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 214, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, leave out ‘his’ and insert ‘their’.

No. 215, in clause 4, page 4, line 14, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 216, in clause 4, page 4, line 16, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 217, in clause 4, page 4, line 19, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 218, in clause 5, page 4, line 33, leave out ‘commissioner certifies’ and insert ‘commissioners certify’.

No. 219, in clause 15, page 8, line 20, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 220, in clause 15, page 8, line 28, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

No. 221, in clause 20, page 10, line 41, leave out ‘commissioner’ and insert ‘commissioners’.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am not sure that I like the idea of “dull and depressing” being my cue, Sir Nicholas. [Laughter.]

On Tuesday, many members of the Committee reflected on the obnoxious nature of the Bill and on how to test it to see whether we could mitigate some of its effects. It is in that spirit that I propose my amendments today, although I accept that as mitigation they would be merely dimples on a face of monstrosity. They recognise first and foremost that such is the feeling in Northern Ireland that the idea of having only one certification commissioner strains people’s confidence, particularly that of victims. When at other times in the process the two Governments have adopted new measures, supposedly to take the process forward and to deal with outstanding and remaining difficulties, they have recognised that the dimensions of the problem are not confined only to Northern Ireland and victims of the crimes committed during the troubles. People in the south have been affected, as, indeed, have people in Britain and beyond.

Our amendments would ensure that there were at least three certification commissioners. They provide for the possibility of creating an international dimension of credibility and support for the whole exercise. Before when the two Governments have tried to take things forward, they have often relied on creating bodies that could carry an international capacity and recruit personalities not only in Northern Ireland, but beyond the shores of these islands. That happened with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the Independent Monitoring Commission, and it could well happen with the appeals commissioners dealt with under later clauses of the Bill. The Bill provides not only that there can be appeals commissioners—plural—but that, when appointing them the Secretary of State should ensure that they command the widest possible confidence throughout Northern Ireland.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Sir Nicholas, it is delightful to be in Committee under your chairmanship. No matter how dark it is outside, you brighten the Room—as does the hon. Member for Foyle. There is never a dull moment when he is present.

The hon. Gentleman began his introduction to the amendments by pointing out the obnoxious nature of the Bill. We cannot get away from that fact. Given that it is so obnoxious to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, how can he believe that the Secretary of State could find just one commissioner—let alone three—who commands enough widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland to give get-out-of-jail-free cards to anyone?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I take the hon. Lady’s point. It might well be that the Government should support our amendment because they might not find a person who would take the job that they will be asking someone to do. The argument cuts both ways. People might be reluctant to take on the role, given that every victims’ group known to us has described the Bill as offensive. In proposing the amendment, we acknowledge that it will be hard to find people who might accept the job and it will certainly be hard to find any one person in Northern Ireland who could command widespread acceptance in the north. The fact is that, unlike the provision for the appeals commissioners, clause 2 does not require the Secretary of State to appoint someone who would command widespread acceptance in the north to the post of certification commissioner.

Our amendments would provide for a number of certification commissioners. That would allow for a suitable international dimension and for the appointment of people from throughout these islands as well. Our proposal is entirely consistent with the provision that the Government have made elsewhere in the Bill in respect of the appeals commissioners. We ask only that the Government are consistent with their own standards and principles and we offer amendments Nos. 178 and 179 in that spirit. The other amendments are all simply consequential, pluralizing all the references to the certification commissioner or the commissioner elsewhere in the Bill.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he envisages the commissioners working together as a unit or independently as three arbiters? That matter came up when my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) raised the question of having three judges as a Diplock court. It would be helpful to have clarification on that.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Yes, we envisage the members acting corporately as a combined panel, as has been the case with other bodies. We do not envisage them acting independently. It will not be a case of “pick your certification commissioner”—we do not think that the amendments suggest that there would be a range of certification commissioners that people could choose from. They would be a corporate body.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

In that case, will the hon. Gentleman clarify how he envisages the commissioners making a decision? Although I hate to throw the same question at him as was thrown at my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, does he envisage them acting on the basis of a majority vote or a unanimous judgment? It would be legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to say that he would leave such matters to the creation of standing orders at the time, but it would be useful to have an idea whether he has a view on the matter.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We would need to discuss and explore that matter further. We did not get into it specifically in the amendment, because we can see arguments for and against. Those arguments could also arise in relation to the appeals commissioners. It might be that where a unanimous decision cannot be taken, a matter will have to be automatically referred to the appeals commissioners. There are a number of ways of dealing with the issue. We are trying to establish the principle that just as there are appeals commissioners—plural—sitting collectively, so should there be certification commissioners.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Good morning, Sir Nicholas. Welcome to the third sitting of the Committee.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Foyle for raising this question, because it gives us an opportunity in Committee to establish clearly the role of the certification commissioner and whether it can be satisfied by one person or whether, as the amendment proposes, several people should undertake that role.

I say immediately to my hon. Friend that it is not necessary to have more than one certification commissioner. I will try to explain the Government’s thinking. The commissioner’s task is sensitive and it may be difficult at times, for the reasons of which we are all aware. It goes without saying that the Bill is difficult and causes great difficulties, and I know hon. Members’ objections to the principle of the Bill. However, if it is accepted in principle that the certification commissioner should exist, I believe that the task can most effectively be undertaken by one individual.

If the Bill is passed, the commissioner will be working to an objective test of whether an individual is able to qualify for admission to the scheme. The role of the certification commissioner is to take a relatively straightforward decision on whether a person is eligible using the list of conditions that will, if later clauses are agreed to, be laid down by Parliament for that purpose. The appeals commissioners, to which my hon. Friend referred, have a quasi-judicial role and replicate the role of the sentence review commissioners, who make a different type of decision. The objectivity of the certification commissioner’s role will be clear; he or she will be making that test based on the eligibility criteria.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister outline what qualifications the certification commissioner will have to display and what criteria will be used by the Government when making that appointment? Will he underline the fact that they are looking for merits? I hope to goodness that they will be.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Schedule 1, which we will discuss later, allows for discretion in making the appointment.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

That is precisely why I am intervening now, because although the special tribunal and those who sit on it must have qualifications such as having enjoyed high judicial office in Northern Ireland or in England and Wales, there is nothing in schedule 1 about the qualifications, merits or anything else that the certification commissioner must have. Before we agree to the clause—although I will be voting against it—it would be pleasant if the Minister indicated what the Government are looking for in that appointment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In broad quality terms, we are looking for a certification commissioner who is sensitive to and understands the political and judicial system in Northern Ireland, who can work equally with the judiciary, the special prosecutor and victims, and who understands the difficult circumstances that have brought the Bill about. He or she will need to be familiar with the criminal justice system and to have a background in handling sensitive information. Without specifying the particular skills and attributes that that individual will need, it is clear that the post will be a senior appointment with considerable gravitas. Reverting back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, there will be sufficient consultation with stakeholders in Northern Ireland to ensure that the appointment can be made in a sympathetic way and with the support of the wider community, as I hope we have done in other cases.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Minister explain who he thinks are the stakeholders to be consulted? Does that mean the parties—getting the usual sound-around that does not add up to very much? Does it mean the victims? Does it mean those who might be applying for certificates? We have a Hain-Adams Bill, providing for a Hain-Adams exercise in terms of a certification commissioner. Will it not really just be a Hain-Adams appointment?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The appointment will be made under normal independent appointments commission criteria, but as ever in Northern Ireland there is often the opportunity for the Secretary of State to discuss the potential for particular candidates with interested stakeholders in the political parties, and others. Ultimately, the appointment will be made under the appointments commission criteria. When making the appointment, the Secretary of State and the commission will need to ensure that there is understanding and community consensus regarding the individual appointed, because of the sensitivities involved and the controversial nature of the legislation.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not know how the Minister expects that to mean anything to any of us, and certainly to those of us from Northern Ireland, although it might mean something to Labour Members. The Government are insensitively bulldozing through a Bill that is objectionable and obnoxious to victims and to all the political parties in Northern Ireland—even Sinn Fein is now saying that it finds large parts of the Bill unacceptable. How will the consultation and sensitivity that the Minister seeks on this appointment compare with the consultation and sensitivity that we have had from the Government on the Bill?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am sorry that my hon. Friend has taken that stance. It is clear to me, the Secretary of State and the Government that, should the Bill pass through both Houses of Parliament, the individual who is finally appointed as certification commissioner will have to be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. We will have to deal with the issue of acceptability in due course and we will have to be sensitive, given the nature of the Bill and the difficulties that it involves, and the opposition that there will still be to it. If the Bill reaches the statute book in its present or an amended form when the parliamentary processes have been completed, that sensitivity will be needed to ensure that the wider community has confidence that the certification commissioner will do his or her job in a sensitive and objective way, clearly guided by the conditions set out in the Bill. That will ensure that the commissioner applies the tests set out in later clauses definitively and in a way that is free from outside influence. Ultimately, the test for the commissioner is what the Bill finally says and the way in which the tests in later clauses are applied.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

Following on from the question from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the commissioner will be pivotal in ensuring that the Bill works, but there are huge concerns about the recruitment criteria. Has the Minister undertaken any soundings about the people he is likely to recruit to see whether anybody would be interested in the job? I suspect that few will come forward. Is there an interest in taking the job up?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

We cannot begin looking at the potential today, because the Bill has not yet finished its parliamentary passage. Even if we take the proposal through the House and the other place in the next few weeks and months, the earliest that the scheme will be able to operate will be early to mid-2007. Even if the Bill receives Royal Assent in this Session—between now and October or November next year—there will be time to appoint the certification commissioner and the special tribunal and a range of measures. Even if I said to somebody today, “We want you to be certification commissioner,” we would not be in a position to put that person into post until early to mid-2007. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is therefore that we have not yet undertaken any soundings for individuals. I believe in the primacy of Parliament and we must get the Bill through both Houses. Furthermore, the Bill will not come into effect until early to mid-2007.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

All the stages that the Minister has outlined are procedural. To what extent does he require the IRA’s behaviour to be a factor in the commencement of the Bill?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Even if passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Bill will not come in until 2007. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, another IMC report, which will examine progress on decommissioning, is due in the next 12 months and there will be other opportunities to monitor progress. If there were a failure in the political process, the Secretary of State could review the scheme in due course. However, I anticipate that the political process that commenced with the IRA statement in July this year and with the IMC report in October—and, potentially, its report in January or February next year—will continue to give momentum to the process. I hope that circumstances do not deteriorate, but, as with any political decision, if they do the Government can review any matter to do with this issue. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is the case, because in the past 12 months the Government have reviewed progress relating to the Northern bank robbery and other incidents that occurred in Northern Ireland last year. There are a range of issues, but I anticipate that if the legislation receives Royal Assent—I believe that it will—it will not be implemented until 2007, so questions to do with having an individual person in the certification commissioner’s post will not be considered until a later date.

I am straying slightly from the amendment. I simply say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle that, in my view, having three individuals in this role would not be a satisfactory way of ensuring the objectivity of the test. There should be one certification commissioner. I do not believe that it would be helpful to have a panel of three or more individuals judging the criteria, nor do I believe that having three individuals sharing the load would be satisfactory. We need to have accountability; there should be one individual in the post who is accountable to the Secretary of State through the Bill.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I do not want to prolong the debate, because I know that the Minister has nearly finished his speech. He is using arguments that the Government could have used to oppose Lord Carlile’s recommendation of three judges in Diplock courts. It is inconsistent to use such arguments in the current context and not to apply them in the case of those courts. Why is it that the Government’s only real argument against having three judges in courts is cost and complexity and we now have these different arguments to oppose the proposal of the hon. Member for Foyle?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

We are straying quite far from the amendment, but I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The role of the certification commissioner is set down clearly in the legislation. The objectivity of the criteria for the certification commissioner’s assessment of individuals who might enter the scheme will be set down clearly in later clauses—subject to amendment and discussion in Committee. I believe that that will be an objective role. We do not yet know how many cases might come before the certification commissioner, but we can anticipate the approximate work load. One individual will be sufficient to manage that work load. To have one commissioner would lead to clarity of objectives and clear criteria. It would be far preferable to have one individual, rather than three.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

In fairness to the legitimate points raised by the hon. Member for Foyle, the Minister said that before any appointment—if there is to be an appointment—is made to this ghastly office of certification commissioner, the Secretary of State will consult with stakeholders. Having mentioned that word, the Minister is obliged, I think, to identify who those stakeholders will be, and specifically to confirm to the Committee that the stakeholders will be the Northern Ireland victims’ commissioner, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Chief Constable.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Those matters are subject to discussion and later amendments. I am trying to make it clear that the individual who is appointed has to be acceptable. The Secretary of State will make the appointment, and that individual has to be acceptable to the wider community in Northern Ireland. As ever, there will be informal discussions with a range of individuals. I do not want to specify today who they will be, but, as has happened in respect of other appointments, there will be discussions and understandings reached with individuals to make sure that the person is acceptable to the wider community. The certification commissioner needs to command the confidence of all the people involved in that difficult process. I am confident that when the time comes to make the appointment, the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that sufficient discussions are undertaken when the commission has examined the matter to ensure that the individual who emerges from the process is acceptable to the community at large.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Minister lays great emphasis on the absolute need for the person to be acceptable. However, will he take the point that none of us can think of anybody who might meet the criteria? We are talking about a mythical creature. The reality is that, as Governments have found before during such exercises, in order to get a sense of wider confidence and acceptance, to create some sense of balance and perspective and to take due account of the variety of criteria and considerations, we will have to go for more than one commissioner. We will have to go beyond Northern Ireland and maybe beyond these islands if we are to create enough credibility and confidence. That is the message coming from people who would be consulted on the appointment. Those doubts and suspicions about the appointment are held by many people.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I can only say that we will come later to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down that details potential consultees. My view is that a number of key stakeholders will automatically and naturally be consulted on the matter, because it is important that we have consensus and that whoever emerges from the appointments procedure has the confidence of the wider community.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

What will be the test of acceptability? What will be the proof of consensus? The Minister talks about acceptability and consensus: how will we know acceptability and demonstrate consensus?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am clear that we will need consensus on the appointment. In 2007, if the legislation goes through, when the appointment is finally made and the system is completed there needs to be consensus on an individual who has wide support in the community to undertake an extremely difficult and sensitive task on behalf of the relatives and others. I do not want to specify today all the different stakeholders who need to be consulted, because I do not want to exclude individuals, I do not want to examine the situation or to be clear on that point. However, the Government’s objective is to ensure that the individual appointed as certification commissioner has the wide support of the community in Northern Ireland.

Mark Hendrick (Labour, Preston)

Is it not the case that some hon. Members here today are trying to fill the post—or, more accurately, not fill it—before the legislation is even passed? Is it not the case that having a single commissioner might encourage more consistency in judgments on certification than having three different commissioners who interpret the legislation in different ways?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I return to my first point. The certification commissioner will examine cases according to an objective test that we will set in later clauses. If an individual applies for a certificate, the commissioner will be objective in applying that test. I want the certification commissioner to be accepted and respected by all sections of the community, to have dignity and to handle their extremely sensitive task in a positive way, without fear or favour, according to that objective.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle that I believe a single commissioner will be better placed to undertake that objective test rather than a panel of commissioners. The widespread community support and balance that might be possible if we had three commissioners from different sections of the community is not necessary, because the test is an objective test. I want the individual who is ultimately appointed to have the confidence of the community. When we discuss the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Down, I shall be able to discuss the fact that we want consensus on the appointment.

Several hon. Membersrose—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am trying to conclude my remarks, but if Members want me to give way, I will certainly continue to take interventions.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The Minister has been kind in allowing people to intervene. However, it is the job of the Committee to scrutinise every aspect of the Bill, and that includes the work of the commissioner. We are talking about the creation of a new post, which must be seen to work. A number of members of the Committee are concerned that it will not work and that we will not be able to create and fill the post. I am worried that we will not meet the interests of all the stakeholders and that, as a consequence, we will not find someone in Northern Ireland who knows everything about what is going on there and can do the job correctly. We will then have to recruit somebody, probably from the mainland, and bring them in to do that job. That is the only way that the post will be filled, because no one else will come forward. That is why it is important for us to understand in detail what is expected of the commissioner.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I almost intervened on the hon. Gentleman because he was going on for so long. Could he give me any documentary evidence to back up his assertion that there is nobody in Northern Ireland who can fill the position?

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The hon. Gentleman has been challenged by the Minister.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I have been, Sir Nicholas. It should be the other way round. The Minister should convince us that there are people willing to come forward. I realise that I am testing your patience with the length of my interventions, Sir Nicholas, but I have a valid point to make and the Minister has challenged me. I appreciate that he has not taken any soundings and that the post has not even been created, but if he had taken soundings among the type of people who might take up the role and had found that none of them would go anywhere near that job, that would indicate that the role of the commissioner will be hard to fill, even in 2007.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I do not accept that. I take it from his contributions that the hon. Gentleman will support the amendment that proposes having three commissioners, but if his assertion is correct and I cannot find one, how on earth could I find three?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Minister has talked about the difficulties of having three commissioners and says that there is no need to have three to get widespread acceptance. Why then does clause 13 provide that that is exactly what is needed for the appeals commissioners? Can he also explain how he can oppose amendment No. 179, which would simply build into the Bill the very assurance that he has given: he said that there is an absolute necessity to ensure acceptance of and consensus about the appointment, and amendment No. 179 would make that a requirement in the Bill. The Bill says that about the appeals commissioner, but it studiously and deliberately does not say that about the certification commissioner.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I do not believe that a statutory requirement is needed on that issue, but I do believe that ultimately it is quite sensible to ensure that that objective is achieved. That is a simple disagreement between us.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I rise to answer the question that the Minister left hanging. The reason why it might be better to have three certification commissioners is that if the qualities, skills and experience that the Minister seeks cannot be found in one person, they might be found in three collectively.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Those are conjectures. The Government’s view is that it is in the interests of the effective management of the scheme to have one certification commissioner who applies an objective test to the criteria that we will set in later clauses.

I understand the arguments. I accept the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, but I hope that he accepts my reassurances that there will be consensus on the appointment when it is made and that there will be an objective test which the certification commissioner, whoever he or she is, will apply.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Does the hon. Member for Foyle wish to make some concluding remarks? I feel that this debate has exhausted itself.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I simply repeat the point that the amendments are consistent with the spirit of the Bill in respect of the appeals commissioners, so I cannot see why the Government can have a seriously strong objection. The amendments would put into the Bill the sort of assurances and guarantees that the Minister has tried to give the Committee this morning, so in rejecting the amendments, he is in effect rejecting his own argument, his own guarantees and assurances.

To respond to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) about people here this morning trying to prevent any appointment, I am quite up front about trying to prevent the passage of the Bill. I am also quite up front about saying that if there are amendments that we can make to mitigate the effect of the Bill, we will make them. As I said earlier, if accepted, the amendments would simply be dimples on a monstrosity. The very fact that the Minister and my hon. Friends on the Government’s Benches cannot conceive of even that just adds to the sense of despair, frustration and disgust that many good people feel looking at the legislation.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

We now come to amendment No. 229. I must apologise to the Committee. The names associated with this amendment are, I understand, incorrect, and the amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for North Down.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 229, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert

‘First and Deputy First Minister Acting jointly’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 230, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

‘(1A)No appointment may be made under subsection (1) above without the approval of the First and Deputy First Minister acting jointly.’.

No. 41, in clause 24, page 13, line 18, at end add—

‘(2)The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section until he has made an order under section 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (c. 1) (ending suspension).’.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I am most grateful for that explanation of how the names appeared on the list. North Down is a progressive constituency, but we are not just that.

Amendments Nos. 229 and 230 are straightforward but, nevertheless, important. They share the same objective, which is to provide a role for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the appointment of the certification commissioner. Amendment No. 229 would give those two office holders, acting jointly—that is the key phrase—the role of appointing the certification commissioner. Although the Secretary of State is committed to making the appointment of the certification commissioner, amendment No. 230 would still require the approval of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, again acting jointly.

The reasoning behind the amendments is simple and straightforward. First, it would tie any appointment of a certification commissioner to devolution. Consequently, if there were no devolution, there would be no certification commissioner, and if there were no commissioner, there would be no amnesty. If, post devolution, the First and Deputy First Ministers could not agree to appoint anyone, no one should be appointed as a certification commissioner, and if no one was appointed, no one would get a get-out-of-jail-free card; one would not be issued.

In explaining the reasoning behind the amendments, I hope for support from hon. Members from constituencies throughout Northern Ireland and beyond. I hope that hon. Members recognise that, by supporting the amendment, they will not only delay the opportunity to put in place an amnesty for the worst criminals but, perhaps, delay that indefinitely. I encourage anyone with a conscience and a moral compass in their head to support the amendments.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Amendments Nos. 229 and 230, which should have appeared in the name of the hon. Member for North Down, have a similar purpose to amendment No. 41 in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Although the hon. Lady has attached her name to the amendment on the certification commissioner, we have attached ours to the amendment to clause 24, which relates to commencement of the provisions of the Act. It is not for me to question the grouping of amendments, but mine deals with a later clause. However, the purpose of the amendments is similar, which is no doubt why they were grouped together.

Amendment No. 41 gives us an opportunity to explore with the Minister the circumstances in which he intends to commence the provisions of the legislation. In an intervention, I sought to draw attention to the fact that the Minister had taken a very procedural position in relation to commencement of the legislation, whereas all the arguments presented on the Floor of the House of Commons indicated that it was in the context of what the IRA statement had said, what the IRA was doing and the general push towards peace. We want it to be clearly identified that the Minister will seek to commence the provisions of the legislation only in circumstances in which normality has resumed in Northern Ireland.

We have therefore attached the amendment to the recommencement of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It refers to the Northern Ireland Act 2000, the suspension Act. When that is lifted, powers are devolved back to the Assembly. I recognise that the Government have complete control over that, but the amendment takes into account the fact that there would be no point in their removing the suspension if they did not believe that there was sufficient confidence in the community for the Assembly to recommence its operation. We have linked the amendment to a time when not only the Government but the whole community will have judged IRA activity to have reached such a stage that it has given up all its weaponry and ended its criminal and paramilitary activity. This odious Bill brings into being a set of circumstances that no right-thinking democrat wants to see but, under the amendment, it would at the very least be brought into effect only in circumstances in which there was seen to be some benefit for the community, in that normality would have resumed.

On previous occasions—this is no doubt the reason why the hon. Member for North Down tabled her amendments; it is certainly the reason why we tabled ours—the Government have been prepared to take paramilitaries at their word. The Government have been prepared to dish out the goodies to the paramilitaries in the hope that they might be persuaded, no doubt cowed by the generosity of the Government, into giving up their violence. The amendments would mean that paramilitaries would know straightforwardly and up front that unless all their violence and criminality is put behind them, they would not benefit from the legislation. Instead of the Government giving gestures to paramilitaries without receiving any assurance that they will deliver, and the community seeing that, once again, the Government are making concessions that they will never draw back from once they have offered them, the amendments will bring certainty to the situation.

I trust therefore that the Government will be prepared to concede on that very small issue. I think that my colleagues will be content, if the hon. Lady presses her amendment to a Division, to support it, because it will make the same point as ours, and we will therefore not push our amendment to a Division. However, I trust that neither the hon. Lady nor the rest of us will have to press the amendments to a Division because I hope that the Minister will be prepared to concede on the matter.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) makes the point that all three amendments are about trying to ensure that the Bill does not come into effect and that appointments cannot take place until we have a context of devolution. I have some sympathy and understanding with what he and the hon. Member for North Down are trying to achieve in that regard. However, I have a number of concerns.

First, as someone who was part of the very difficult arrangement of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, I emphasise that we should recognise that although acting jointly brings its own difficulties and strains, it does not mean that the two people acting jointly have any discretion about some of the decisions that they have to take. There would still be a statutory requirement on them to take a decision to make an appointment, whether they wanted to or could find the one person who could meet those criteria.

Given that the previous amendments concerning three commissioners have been rejected, I believe that we would be asking the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly to do the impossible. I therefore do not fully agree with the amendments. However, I am tempted to vote for them, on the basis that I know that my hon. Friends do not agree with what they are voting for, if we are to believe all that we hear, but that they see no problem in voting for things that they do not really agree with or that their heart is not in. In terms of being ready to test the Bill, I might be prepared to vote for things that I do not fully believe in or agree with.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain how his party’s policy has changed on that matter? The hon. Gentleman’s colleague, Seamus Mallon, the former hon. Member for Armagh and Newry, who is, unfortunately, no longer in the House—he was a great parliamentarian—was very vocal during the passage of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, about writing in at every opportunity that any justice programme or appointments in the judicial field should be a matter for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly. Amendments were moved by the hon. Gentleman’s party colleagues ad infinitum on that piece of legislation. Has his party’s policy changed?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

No, and the hon. Lady will recall that other amendments were tabled in respect of the policing Bill, for instance, in relation to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly, which the SDLP—Seamus Mallon—did not support. We have been judicious as to when it is right and proper for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to discharge the interest of the Northern Ireland Administration and the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of justice matters and devolution, because the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have a rightful representative and corporate role on behalf of the Northern Ireland institutions in that context. However, in relation to other proposals, about matters with a more political import on which people wanted the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to provide a veto, we had a history of opposing it in previous legislation.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the point of the amendment is not that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would have the right of veto, but that they would be making the decision in a context in which there had been sufficient confidence to get devolution up and running? That would have required a long period of change and evidence, taken from IRA behaviour, of a change of heart. A link would be made with proper behaviour by the terrorists.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Even though I have problems with the amendments, I recognise the spirit in which they are proposed. I do not believe that people will, whatever the circumstances, be as reconciled to the Bill as he suggests. He might be careful; the argument that he makes today might be used by those who support the Bill to suggest that it will be all right on the night—that when we get to where we are going, all other things being equal, people will be able to hold their noses and accept the measure. I do not believe that the Bill will become much more acceptable, no matter how certain other things become.

One reason for my reluctance about the amendments—and I am particularly glad that, to go by what the hon. Member for Belfast, East has said, the DUP will not put its amendment to a Division—is connected to the fact that many of us use expressions such as “This must be opposed or prevented at all costs.” I should go so far as to say that I believe that about the Bill. However, I do not want to create a situation in which “all costs” includes preventing devolution. I do not want to create an incentive to avoid completion, with respect to the prospect of restoration, as a way of preventing the Bill from taking effect.

We have already seen the trouble that has arisen from the pub crawl of preconditions about creating talks, creating institutions and getting back to restoration. I recognise that the hon. Member for Belfast, East will probably not press amendment No. 41; I am not sure that it would achieve what he thinks it would. As we have seen, the Secretary of State can suspend on a come-and-go basis. We have had two commercial break suspensions, when we were stripped of our powers at midnight on Saturday, to have them restored at midnight on Sunday. If we can have commercial break suspension, I am sure that we could have commercial break restoration to create a trigger point for the appointment. It would, of course, mean restoration of the Assembly, not the institutions such as the Executive.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Down would go much further to guarantee that agreed working institutions would be in place before the appointment could be made. They are stronger than amendment No. 41. I am willing to hear what the Minister has to say. I will listen and take into account the balance, but the amendments will not make the appointment or the process more acceptable, and I am concerned that they might tilt some people’s attitude to the prospects for devolution.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

I want to echo the views of the hon. Member for Foyle and perhaps develop them a little. I reiterate Liberal Democrats’ opposition to the Bill as a whole, but we want, in a spirit of co-operation, to examine how it would work. We have a problem with the amendments, as their effect would be that the Bill would not be enforced until suspension had been lifted and the Assembly was back up and running. That would be an incentive for Sinn Fein to do all that it could to create the circumstances in which other democratic parties were prepared to go into government with it. It works both ways, because all the parties in Northern Ireland would have to work in a spirit of co-operation, but I am worried that that may act as a disincentive against getting things back up and running and against suspension being lifted so that the Bill does not come into effect.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I follow the hon. Lady’s logic, but she will be aware from the meeting that she attended that was similar to the one that I attended only yesterday that Sinn Fein now has serious reservations about the Bill.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but is he saying that he does not believe that Sinn Fein would be prepared to come to the table anyway if suspension were lifted?

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

My point is that it is getting to the stage where all the parties will be opposed to the Bill. The hon. Lady may have a different interpretation, but if she is suggesting that the DUP, for example, would delay going back into government to prevent the Bill from being enacted, I suspect that Sinn Fein may also reach that point, based on what I heard yesterday, because of its objection to members of the security forces being included in the Bill. I am not suggesting that this would be the case, but if the DUP were to delay devolution in order to prevent the Bill from becoming an Act, I am becoming convinced that Sinn Fein may well attempt to do the same.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) wants to intervene.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Is my hon. Friend saying that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) is right to suggest that all parties in Northern Ireland may have an incentive to oppose the introduction of the legislation? If she is, and if I understand the hon. Member for Tewkesbury correctly, that strengthens her case, because it means that the only way in which we may be able to prevent the implementation of this dreadful legislation is by preventing the re-institution of the Assembly. If that is the case, that is an even stronger incentive not to tie the re-establishment of the Assembly directly to the implementation of this dreadful Bill.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

I strongly commend the amendment to the Committee for the following reason. I accept the Government’s good intentions in trying to find a way forward in the incredibly difficult situation in Northern Ireland, but they have achieved the unique feat of uniting all parties in Northern Ireland that are wholeheartedly committed to democratic unity in opposition to the measure. Indeed, it may have united them particularly uniquely with Sinn Fein, which may also be against the measure.

The Minister may feel unable to share this with the Committee, but if the Bill is the result of assurances that have been given to Sinn Fein about how on-the-runs will be dealt with, the amendment is a very elegant way of taking a lot of poison out of the Bill, because it allows him to maintain any assurances that might have been made while delaying their implementation until there is enough trust between the different communities in Northern Ireland to allow it to be implemented.

I would say only that if such an amendment were accepted, the Committee would have to consider further amendments that would not make it binding on the resumption of devolution that the Bill would have to be enacted. In other words, the Bill would not have to be enacted with the support of the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont. The Minister should accept that this genuine attempt to find a way through an incredibly difficult Bill—one that is distasteful to all parts of the Committee—would allow such measures, if they are ever appropriate, to be put forward at a more appropriate time, when there is more trust in the community in Northern Ireland.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

We have moved on to discussing devolved government in Northern Ireland in this context. There is a crude yardstick: if devolved government returns, that will be an indication that things are going in the right direction. The Bill is designed to come into effect in 2007. If devolved government comes back then, we will have had a period of peace. Everybody in this room would be in favour of that.

We spoke earlier about the qualifications that would be required from the commissioner, and concerns were expressed from most parts of the Committee about the suitability of the candidate who might be put forward. With the utmost respect to the Minister, my concern is that the fact that we are addressing a Bill of this kind at all suggests that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may not necessarily have his finger on the pulse as to what is required in Northern Ireland, as perhaps he should have. We should consider what including the First and Deputy First Ministers as part of the process of selecting a commissioner would allow.

David Anderson (Labour, Blaydon)

The way I read the amendment, the First and Deputy First Ministers would not be part of the process; they would be the whole process, because it would take the Secretary of State out of it.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The amendment that I am supporting is inclusive; it is the one that includes the Secretary of State, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Mark Hendrick (Labour, Preston)

Amendment No. 230.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

Thank you. The purpose of that is to include the interests of not only the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but of people in Northern Ireland, and only after there is devolved government. The Minister spoke of its being in the interests of all stakeholders to participate in the process, and of being in agreement with the commissioner. Two people with the biggest interest in ensuring that this works will be the First and Deputy First Ministers. Therefore, I very much support the amendment.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There are three amendments before the Committee. The first, amendment No. 229, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) mentioned, would allow just the First and Deputy First Ministers to make the appointment for certification commissioner, not the Secretary of State. The second, amendment. No. 230, would make the appointment conditional on the approval of the First and Deputy First Ministers. The provision in the third, amendment No. 41, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, would not come into effect unless the Assembly were restored.

I have listened with care to what has been said in favour of each amendment, and there is obviously a wish on everybody’s part to ensure that the Assembly is up and running as soon as possible. That wish is shared by the Government. As a Minister, I am responsible for two devolved Departments. I have no vote, no mandate and no constituency in Northern Ireland, yet I determine policy on a range of issues, such as housing, the Olympics, sports, the arts and social security. I did not stand for election in Northern Ireland, and not one single cross was put by the name of a candidate from my party in Northern Ireland. That it is not a tenable position in the long term. I would like the Assembly to be restored tomorrow, and I will quite happily walk out of this room and discuss its re-establishment with any Member from any political party.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister accept that the arguments that he has just made represent a good reason for not introducing controversial legislation such as this in the first place?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That goes back to my main argument against the amendments—namely, that these are excepted matters that are reserved to the House of Commons and the British Government. These matters are the Government’s responsibility because they deal with terrorism and crime; they are not—in any way, shape or form—devolved to the Assembly. The Assembly is responsible for devolved functions, and I want it to take responsibility for those functions tomorrow.

Gordon Banks (Labour, Ochil and South Perthshire)

I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister. If this legislation were being enacted in other parts of the UK that have devolved government, such as Scotland, would these matters be reserved to Westminster and not fall under Holyrood’s jurisdiction?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In Scotland, these matters are a responsibility of the Scottish Executive because criminal justice is devolved.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

And the Minister is bringing in this Bill?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Gentleman should wait a moment. The Scottish Executive have responsibility for certain matters, but the matters before us—terrorism and national security—are reserved to the British Government.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. We must separate security matters, which, of course, should not be devolved to Northern Ireland at present, and the selection of a commissioner. I hope we can distinguish between the two. We are not arguing that anyone from the Assembly should participate in respect of the commissioner’s role; we are simply discussing the selection of that commissioner. That is as far as it would go.

Does the Minister not agree that it would be inclusive and to the benefit of those in Northern Ireland—and to those stakeholders to which the Minister referred—to include those who have knowledge of what is happening on the ground?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Perhaps I could put that question back to the hon. Gentleman. Does he think that, in the event of devolution being restored, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should have a say in who becomes chief of the civil service in the Assembly? It is the same principle; these are excepted matters. In a devolved circumstance, should the Secretary of State have a say on who is appointed head of the civil service in Northern Ireland?

Several hon. Membersrose—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Several hon. Members wish to intervene. Perhaps I could hear first from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Clause 18 on the special prosecutor states:

“The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, must appoint a person, to be known as the Special Prosecutor”.

That seems to tie in with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Foyle that the First and Deputy First Ministers should approve the appointment. It seems identical.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

For the avoidance of doubt, the Government believe that the scheme in the Bill is an excepted matter under schedule 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It will be covered by the category

“special powers and other provisions for dealing with terrorism”

in paragraph 17 of that schedule. The First and Deputy First Ministers do not have any authority or responsibility for taking any part in the appointment of the certification commissioner, potentially, because that matter is excepted and reserved under that legislation.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As one who has served in a devolved Parliament, I know that a can of worms can start small and get bigger and bigger. I fully understand his position on terrorism offences, which the Bill predominantly covers. In a previous sitting, we discussed offences committed, perhaps, by members of the armed forces. Those would be ordinary criminal offences committed, perhaps, during duty, but not in any way terrorist offences.

Therefore, the commissioner may be dealing with crimes that may become the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly, if my friends in the DUP are correct when they talk about the Minister introducing a crime Bill in the next 12 months to cover devolved powers. How does the Minister cover that angle? The commissioner or the special tribunal might deal with crimes rather than terrorist crimes, so they would fall within the remit of Stormont.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point because it helps to clarify this matter. We must consider the purpose of clause 1. The definition of the crimes is for

“terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland”—

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Whether for terrorist purposes or not.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

But that will include—we are revisiting the debate on clause 1—a definition by the certification commissioner of what is related to terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury asked about the Advocate-General. On reflection, I can establish the fact that that is a Westminster office, which is currently not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

I do not expect the Minister to tell us off the top of his head how the fine detail as between a criminal offence—only he is aware of the reforms that he might introduce to Stormont in future—and the terrorist issues will be coped with, but I urge him to consider that difference carefully. I know that the Scotland Act 1998 looked good in Committee, but when the Scottish Parliament became a reality, these things, in relation to Westminster, did not always work. We have already seen such issues arise with the First Minister in respect of immigration. Therefore, I urge this Minister and his officials to reconsider the matter carefully and to try to find a way out, because there is a difference between a terrorist crime and a crime committed elsewhere or by a member of the armed forces.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I will reflect on those issues in due course, but today we are considering the amendments before us. The involvement of the First and Deputy First Ministers might mean that what is now an excepted and reserved matter would be their responsibility in part, and would give them a veto in part, in respect of ensuring that the certification commissioner is not appointed.

For the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle mentioned, there would be potential for political gridlock if the Secretary of State could not make an appointment due to there being no agreement between the First and Deputy First Ministers. History shows us that, because the First and Deputy First Ministers will be from different political parties, there will, on occasion, be a veto for one party. I seek consensus on the appointment, but I do not want to give a statutory veto to one or both of those elected officials.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Earlier, the Minister made great play of the importance of there being consensus as well as widespread and general community acceptance of the commissioner. Is he now saying that there may be circumstances in which that will not happen and that he therefore wants to the power to remain in the hands of the Secretary of State, rather than the decision being made on a cross-community basis between the First and Deputy First Ministers?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I want this matter to remain with the Secretary of State because it is primarily a reserved and excepted matter under Northern Ireland terrorism legislation. The Secretary of State will want to achieve consensus on the appointment, as any sensible Secretary of State should, but the amendment would give a veto on that appointment to the First and Deputy First Ministers, although the Deputy First Minister might not represent the majority party in any Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle gave—I am pleased to agree with him, perhaps for the first time in Committee today—about the potential for political gridlock, agreeing to the amendment would mean taking a retrograde step.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As the Committee knows from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, we were going to support the Government on this amendment, but the more the Minister says, the less inclined I am to do that, because his comments contradict the Government’s actions. He assures us that the Government will seek consensus, yet when every party in Northern Ireland opposed student tuition top-up fees, the Government nevertheless imposed their will on the Province. Why, then, should we believe that the Government will be any more sympathetic to the will and consensus in Northern Ireland over this appointment?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is able to recognise that a Government can work hard and do everything they can to secure consensus, but if it cannot be reached they have a duty to take action. I am seeking consensus on the appointment. The aim of Government and the Secretary of State will be to have widespread community support for and consensus on the appointment. If accept the hon. Lady’s proposal and specify in the Bill that the Secretary of State cedes the principle that a reserved matter is determined by the First Minister or Deputy First Minister and thus cedes the potential for a veto by one particular individual, we might get 90 per cent. consensus but a veto might be used.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for acknowledging for the first time that he might agree with some of what I was arguing, although in reaching to agree with part of my argument, he disagreed with a number of the arguments that he has made before and will no doubt make again.

The Minister stated categorically that we are dealing with a terrorism matter and that that is an issue for the Secretary of State. Some of his comments pre-empt the debate on the scope of devolution in terms of justice and policing. We will table amendments to other clauses in respect of the Secretary of State’s powers to test what difference devolution might make, but will the Minister clarify the position under current legislation? Is it not the case that any power of the First and Deputy First Ministers is exercisable by the Secretary of State if the suspension continues? Even any new power vested in the First and Deputy First Ministers will, during suspension, be exercisable by the Secretary of State.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My hon. Friend’s point is correct. He knows that at the moment, much to my regret, my ministerial colleagues and I are exercising the powers of the First and Deputy First Ministers and all the Ministers in the Assembly. During the suspension, we represent the Assembly in Northern Ireland. I want to resolve that situation soon. I would happily walk out of this Room with my hon. Friends today and restore the Assembly if that were possible.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Does my hon. Friend share my confusion about the statements from the Opposition Benches? The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) sees the amendment as a way to build some sort of consensus by using the mechanisms of the Assembly. The hon. Member for North Down expressed genuinely principled objections—she sees it as a way of blocking not the appointment per se but the process per se. Their views of the function of the amendment are quite contradictory.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I agree with my hon. Friend. My general wish in relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East is that by the time the legislation comes into effect in 2007 the Assembly would be back up and running.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am enormously grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene on that point. He has indicated that the Bill—if it goes through as it stands—will come into force in early to mid-2007. Is he telling us that he has no confidence that there will be a restored Assembly before 2007? Does he think that there will be no First Minister and Deputy First Minister by then? Alternatively, if there is a restoration of devolution and he and his ministerial team walk out the door—we would be glad if they did and we had a devolved Assembly again —should we ignore the First and Deputy First Ministers and ignore the vote and the will of the people of Northern Ireland, despite everything else that has happened and all the opposition to the Bill?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

No, I am not suggesting that we ignore the wishes of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I suggest that we ignore something else: acknowledging their role in a reserved and excepted matter. I hope that the Assembly will be restored. The British Government will do all they can to facilitate discussions with all the parties to restore the Assembly. We want it to be restored as soon as possible. We have already had exploratory, stock-taking talks with all the political parties, with the exception of the Democratic Unionist party, who have refused to take part.

I hope that following the Independent Monitoring Commission report in January next year we will be able to consider how to make progress following the IRA statement in July this year. However, I cannot put a timetable on that. I want devolution to be restored today, but I cannot set out a timetable because the restoration of devolution is not in my hands. It is in the hands of the political parties in Northern Ireland; it is up to them to get around a table to seek an agreement and to establish a devolved Assembly again. I would do that today, but I am not in a position to do that.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister accept that that is the point of the amendments? The Minister is introducing the Bill at a time when there is no devolution, which means that there is no confidence in Northern Ireland that the IRA has changed. The Minister proposes to allow IRA members and others to walk free at a time when it is clear that people are not convinced that there has been any change in their behaviour because devolution is not up and running. Rather than a confidence-building measure, the amendment is a blocking measure to ensure that this kind of legislation can be introduced only when there is confidence in the community that there has been a change.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I am listening to the debate extremely carefully. I would hope that we could wind up our discussion on this amendment by the time that we have to adjourn, but we are going round in ever-decreasing circles. I think that the Minister has got the point, and I think that the Committee understands the position. I merely seek to counsel the Committee about the time that is being taken on this top, if we are to consider the entire Bill within the time limit that has been laid down by the House.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to you for those remarks, Sir Nicholas. I am trying to accommodate hon. Members’ desire to press the Government on these points. I simply say that I do not believe that this matter should be devolved to the Assembly.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Can I clarify one point?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am trying to finish my remarks so that we can conclude our discussion on this amendment before we adjourn. I am happy to give way, because, as I have said, it is entirely in the Opposition’s hands to progress the Bill at the pace they wish. However, I also recognise what Sir Nicholas has said: we are still dealing with minor amendments to clause 2 and we have far to go.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

I shall be brief, Sir Nicholas. I hope that what I have to say might produce compromise and save time by avoiding a Division. Amendment No. 230 mentions “approval”. Will the Minister consider returning with a Government amendment that replaces the word “approval” with “consult” so the legislation at least forces the Secretary of State to consult with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I made the point earlier that we must ensure that there is wide consultation; such an amendment would preclude that. The First and Deputy First Ministers will—probably—come from only two political parties out of all of Northern Ireland’s political teams.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

They will.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Exactly; they will. If I make it a statutory requirement to consult them, that will not be a requirement to consult with a range of other individuals. That is the point I am trying to make.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Minister’s said earlier that there would be consultation with all the stakeholders, but he would not specify who the stakeholders would be, but it seems that it is now being specifically stated that the stakeholders will not include our First and Deputy First Ministers, although people may be consulted on the basis of the parties they represent. The whole point of the joint office of First and Deputy First Minister being put into the Good Friday agreement was so that people would have a statutory duty to operate not purely on a partisan basis. That is a valuable principle in the agreement—although it was dislodged in the comprehensive agreement last December.

Can the Minister make it clear that the amendment would not have the effect that its supporters believe it would? Even if the powers were to fall to the First and Deputy First Ministers, the Secretary of State could exercise them anyway. Restoration would not be required before appointments could be made. Even if the legislation were amended in this way, the Secretary of State could go ahead and make the appointments using the powers of the First and Deputy First Ministers.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I say to my hon. Friend that I believe that the amendments would ensure that the First and Deputy First Minister are responsible for a reserved matter. I want them to be consulted, but I do not want to preclude consultation with a range of other people.

We have had a full discussion, and I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn. If that is not done, I urge my party colleagues to reject it.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I shall make my remarks quickly and with brevity, because I appreciate that we have a lot to get through—and I appreciate your efforts, Sir Nicholas. I am sorry, but I shall not withdraw the amendment—

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill - Standing Committee B

Clause 2 - Certification commissioner

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 230, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

‘(1A)No appointment may be made under subsection (1) above without the approval of the First and Deputy First Minister acting jointly.’.

No. 41, in clause 24, page 13, line 18, at end add—

‘(2)The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section until he has made an order under section 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (c. 1) (ending suspension).’.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr. Taylor. We are unanimously delighted to sit under your chairmanship this afternoon, and we welcome you to this exciting Committee. It is exciting because this is the first time that we have been able to put the Minister on his mettle in defending, line by line, the clauses of this appalling legislation. I am sorry that he finds himself a little exasperated because we have made such little progress, but this is all in the interests of better justice in Northern Ireland. I will push amendments Nos. 229 and 230 to Divisions, because it is enormously important that he and the Government are consistent in their policy in Northern Ireland.

I find the Minister’s justification for refusing to accept the amendments extraordinary. I say that because he referred to at least two different sets of arguments. One is that this is an excepted matter. The term “excepted” is born out of the legislation that brought about Northern Ireland—the Government of Ireland Act 1920, under which there are reserved matters at Westminster, devolved matters and excepted matters. Excepted matters are limited; they include defence and taxation.

The Minister sought to persuade the Committee that because the certification commissioner will deal with those who might have committed acts of terrorism, this is an excepted matter. That cannot be the case and I need him to explain the policy to us. I again refer him to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which was taken through the House by his Government and his colleagues. Section 2 says that the

“First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly”

may perform a certain function. Sections 3 and 4 include exactly the same provision in relation to other functions.

In the Committee that considered that legislation, I asked the Northern Ireland Office Minister responsible for those matters the question this Minister has posed today: if the First and Deputy First Ministers do not agree, one would have a veto over progress, so what would happen? The Northern Ireland Office Minister then responsible for those matters replied:

“Our stock answer would be that we are not planning for failure”.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 2002; c. 68.]

At every juncture, the Government wrote it into the legislation that the First and Deputy First Ministers must act jointly on a range of judicial appointments. Those judges will deal with terrorist offences—for example, where Diplock courts are involved. What do such courts deal with apart from those who are accused of the most heinous crimes, which are scheduled offences? They deal with terrorism. The certification commissioner can be in no different category.

The Minister needs to explain why, in 2002, Government policy was that the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly should have such a significant role in judicial matters, but that, on this occasion, the situation involving the certification commissioner, who will sit only in Northern Ireland and will have an exclusively Northern Ireland remit, is different. Why do the Government wish to reject this amendment? Are they preparing for failure in restoring the institutions?

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I beg to move amendment No. 231, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

‘(1A)Before making any appointment under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State must consult—

(a)the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission,

(b)the Victims Commissioner and

(c)the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.’.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 154, in schedule 1, page 15, line 28, leave out ‘is granted’ and insert ‘applies for’.

Amendment No. 155, in schedule 1, page 15, line 28, at end insert—

‘(1A)The commissioner shall consult, and have regard to the views of, the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner about arrangements to be made in fulfilling his duties under sub-paragraph (1).’.

Amendment No. 156, in schedule 1, page 15, line 28, at end insert—

‘(1A)It is the duty of the commissioner to secure that appropriate arrangements are made—

(a)to allow representations from victims about the case of each person who applies for a certificate of eligibility;

(b)to have regard to the views of victims about the case of each person who applied for a certificate of eligibility;

(c)to give the victims the reasons for his decision to grant or refuse a certificate of eligibility in every case.’.

Amendment No. 237, in schedule 1, page 15, line 33, leave out ‘a’ and insert ‘an unacceptable’.

Amendment No. 157, in schedule 1, page 15, line 33, at end insert—

‘(4)Before deciding whether to withhold any information on the grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (3) the commissioner must consult, and have the agreement of, the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner.’.

Amendment No. 52, in clause 3, page 2, line 36, at end insert—

‘(e)that the Victim Impact Assessment Panel has reported to the Commissioner that the issuing of a certificate to the applicant will not cause long-term alarm or distress to the victims of the offences specified in the application.’.

Amendment No. 53, in clause 3, page 3, line 17, at end add—

‘“Victim Impact Assessment Panel” means a body of persons with relevant professional qualifications established by the Secretary of State to establish the impact of the offences and the consequences of the provisions of this Act on victims.’.

Amendment No. 59, in clause 4, page 3, line 26, after ‘State’, insert

‘, the victims of the offences stated in the application’.

Amendment No. 14, in clause 4, page 3, line 27, at end insert

‘, following which victims and victims’ families shall be notified.

(4A)Following notification under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall publish the names of applicants in such manner as he sees fit.’.

Amendment No. 118, in clause 4, page 3, line 27, at end insert—

‘(4A)The commissioner must inform the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner of the application.’.

Amendment No. 119, in clause 4, page 3, line 29, at end insert—

‘(5A)The Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner may make representations to the commissioner about the application.’.

Amendment No. 64, in clause 6, page 5, line 10, after ‘inform’, insert ‘the victims and’.

Amendment No. 126, in clause 6, page 5, line 10, at end insert

‘and

(c)inform the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner.’.

Amendment No. 246, in clause 11, page 7, line 18, leave out from ‘person’ to end of line 19 and insert—

‘(b)to the appeals commissioners;

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

(d)to the public in such manner as the Secretary of State sees fit.’.

Amendment No. 34, in clause 11, page 7, line 18, leave out ‘and’.

Amendment No. 35, in clause 11, page 7, line 19, at end insert

‘and

(c)to the victim or the victim’s next of kin.’.

Amendment No. 138, in clause 11, page 7, line 19, at end insert—

‘(c)the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner; and

(d)any other such persons as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.’.

Amendment No. 247, in clause 11, page 7, line 26, leave out from ‘person’ to end of line 27 and insert—

‘(b)to the Secretary of State;

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

(d)to the public in such manner as the Secretary of State sees fit.’.

Amendment No. 36, in clause 11, page 7, line 26, leave out ‘and’.

Amendment No. 37, in clause 11, page 7, line 27, at end insert

‘and

(c)to the victim or the victim’s next of kin.’.

Amendment No. 88, in clause 11, page 7, line 27, at end insert

‘and

(c)to the victims.’.

Amendment No. 139, in clause 11, page 7, line 27, at end insert—

‘(c)to the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner, and

(d)to any other such persons as they believe appropriate.’.

Amendment No. 140, in clause 12, page 8, line 6, at end insert—

‘(2A)The Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner may appeal to the appeals commissioner against the grant of a certificate of eligibility.’.

Amendment No. 38, in clause 12, page 8, line 8, at end add—

‘(4)A victim, or his family, may appeal to the appeals commissioners against the grant of a certificate of eligibility.’.

New clause 3—Victims’ rights and entitlements—eligibility certificates—

‘In determining whether an applicant for an eligibility certificate meets the conditions set out in section 3 above, the commissioner shall give an opportunity for a victim, or the family of a victim, to make representations to him.’.

New clause 4—Victims’ rights and entitlements—special tribunals—

‘(1)Before the Special Tribunal established under section 8 sentences an applicant who pleads guilty or is found guilty of an offence, it shall give an opportunity for a victim, or the family of a victim, to make representations to it.

(2)In passing sentence, the Special Tribunal shall take into account any representations made to it under subsection (1).’.

New clause 6—Victims’ applications—

‘(1)Six months after the coming into force of this Act, a victim, or the family of a victim, may apply to the Special Tribunal to try a person who meets the conditions set out in section 3(2) but who has not made an application for a certificate of eligibility.

(2)If an application is made under subsection (1), the Special Tribunal shall proceed to try the case as though the offender held a certificate of eligibility, in accordance with the provisions of section 8(3).

(3)A person found guilty of an offence by the Special Tribunal under the provisions of this section shall, if and when apprehended, serve the sentence set by the Special Tribunal.’.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The lead amendment is very important. It is important to give a voice to the victims in Northern Ireland. As drafted, this particularly offensive legislation will not give victims a voice and will not allow the truth to be heard. Amendment No. 231 would impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult with certain individuals or organisations before the appointment of the certification commissioner. Two key principles should be added: respect for human rights and respect for the views and suffering of victims. The Bill does not acknowledge either.

Other Members will want to speak to their amendments, so I will concentrate on amendment No. 231. Before the appointment of the certification commissioner, the Secretary of State should consult with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland victims commissioner and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

In this morning’s debate, the Minister touched on consultation with—and, I hope, support from—stakeholders. That is a ghastly word. Although pressed on the matter, he refused to identify exactly who the stakeholders would be. I would like him to say at the outset this afternoon that the Government will accept amendment No. 231. That would be meaningful to the victims in Northern Ireland and important in respect of human rights.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has only recently been reconstituted. That important statutory body was set up by the Belfast agreement and, again, put in place by this Government and given a particular role and remit. The Government are consulting on increasing the powers of the commission because they, and the Minister in his capacity as Minister responsible for criminal justice, have rightly said how fundamental and central human rights are in Northern Ireland and to every aspect of Government business.

Given the importance placed by the Minister and the Secretary of State on how good and worthy the new commission is, and all the fine words when the appointments were announced, I would like the Minister to say that he will offer more than just fine words—that is, he will put those fine words into effect by giving formal statutory recognition to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and ensuring that the Secretary of State consults before any certification commissioner is appointed.

Likewise, the Secretary of State should be obliged to consult with the newly appointed Northern Ireland victims commissioner. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was the first such commissioner; his remit was time-limited. When he completed his report, which is entitled “We Will Remember Them”, that was the end of his term of duty, as it is called. I am pleased to say that, recently, a Royal Ulster Constabulary widow, a woman of considerable experience and high reputation who is held in high respect and regard, has been appointed as the—albeit interim, although I hope long-term—victims commissioner.

I shall take a moment to reflect on the Government policy announced by the Lord Chancellor, who is obviously a prominent figure. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the document issued by the Lord Chancellor in September, which is not that long ago. That consultation paper was about giving victims—particularly victims of murder and manslaughter—a voice. The Lord Chancellor said that victims should have a voice, and this year the Government made a commitment in their manifesto to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system.

I would like the Minister to match his words and those of the Government at the time of the appointment of Northern Ireland’s victims commissioner. Instead of glowing words and praise, that individual should be given formal recognition in the Bill. Before the certification commissioner is appointed, the victims commissioner should be satisfied in that respect and formally recognised as a stakeholder in the appointment process.

I hope we all have the highest confidence in the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; as the MP for North Down, I do. Given the very sensitive nature of the information that will have to be presented to the certification commissioner—information about the most heinous crimes that have taken place in Northern Ireland over 20 or 30 years—I, and other Committee members, I am sure, would be reassured if the Secretary of State had a positive duty to consult the PSNI’s Chief Constable. He, or perhaps she in future years, should be content and pleased with the appointment of the certification commissioner.

Frankly, I see no objection that the Minister could put to the amendment. I hope to have his support and that of all Committee members, right-thinking or not-thinking. I hope, too, that all have tuned in to this afternoon’s debate and will support amendment No. 231.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Taylor. I have worked with you before. It was a privilege to do so then, and it is today.

I shall go through the amendments briefly. Amendment No. 154 would remove “is granted” and insert “applies for”, when referring to a certificate of eligibility. As the Minister knows, the Bill has caused hurt, heartache, anxiety and fear in Northern Ireland. The words are disputed, but it proposes an effective amnesty for people who have committed the most awful crimes, some of which were described movingly on Second Reading, especially by the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).

It is bad enough that those found guilty of such offences will not even have to serve a single day in prison. They will not even have to carry out anything such as community service. Nor will they even have to appear in court. Indeed, there will not be a court. Nor will they even have to apply for a certificate of freedom themselves; someone else can do that for them. Those people will not touch the criminal justice system, but will be dealt with at arm’s length.

I am worried about the victims and their relatives, several of whom have travelled to the House of Commons to meet the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and many others, including some members of the Committee. They are hurt and angry. If they cannot obtain justice under the Bill—some of us will try to amend it so that they obtain a degree of justice—we should at the very least keep them informed of what is going on. Lack of knowledge of what is happening can so often make matters worse for the victims.

We need to ensure that the victims are involved in the process, and that means involvement from the start. They should be given information when an application is made for a certificate, not when that certificate is granted. If they are not given the information until the certificate is granted, they will, in effect, have been excluded from the entire process. The victims might not want to become involved or to use the information at all, but the amendment would give them the opportunity to become involved at the start, or part way through the process if they so wish. It is consistent with amendments that other hon. Members have tabled, which involve the Northern Ireland victims and human rights commissioners.

Amendment No. 155 would require the commissioner to consult

“and have regard to the view of the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner about arrangements to be made in fulfilling his duties under sub-paragraph (1)”,

which refers to giving information to victims. Amendment No. 156 would allow representations from victims to be made about

“the case of each person who applies for a certificate”

and regard to be paid to those views. Victims would also be given the reasons for granting or refusing to grant a certificate in every case.

Amendment No. 118 would require the commissioner to inform the victims commissioner of the application. Amendment No. 119 would allow for the victims commissioner to make representations to the commissioner about each application. Amendment No. 126 would require the victims commissioner to be informed if a certificate were cancelled. Under the Bill, the defendant and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland are required to be notified, but victims are not. The amendment would put the victims at the heart of the process.

Amendment No. 138 would require the victims commissioner and anyone else the Secretary of State considered appropriate to be informed of the suspension of a licence. Amendment No. 139 is a similar proposal. Amendment No. 140 would give the right of appeal to the victims commissioner against the refusal to award or against the cancellation of a licence. The Bill gives the right of appeal to the person concerned in the case of an application being refused or a licence revoked, and to the Secretary of State against the granting of a licence. Again, the victim is missing from the process. Our amendment attempts to put the victim at the heart of the process and to begin to relieve their pain.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

One of the worst aspects of the Bill is that victims have had no voice in it. I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), which, among others, would at least add the newly appointed office of victims commissioner to the consultation on the appointment of the certification commissioner.

Neither victims nor their representatives have been consulted on the proposed legislation, yet Ministers and the Secretary of State recognise that it has a real impact on victims. Indeed, I think that the Northern Ireland Office has breached its own equality scheme by failing to consult. The Bill has an impact on victims; its impact is not just on those who will avail themselves of it to get certificates, or those who will have their cases dealt with by the tribunals.

The reality is that victims are—disproportionately—older, Catholic and nationalist. On that basis, there should have been an equality impact assessment. However, that did not happen and, as I understand it, the equality screening exercise that took place considered the equality implications only for the people who would be applying.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to put on the record the fact that the vast majority of victims—although they may have been nationalist and from a particular community—were murdered by the IRA?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have no problem with that. I have said many times in the past that more Catholics were killed by the IRA than were killed by other groups. However, victims as a whole are disproportionately Catholic, nationalist and older people. It is relevant to use those three categories in respect of the groups and interests to be considered under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in terms of the equality impact assessment and relevant equality schemes.

It seems that in its equality screening the Northern Ireland Office only considered the people who might apply to use the scheme, as though the scheme does not have an impact on victims. Even though the Ministers who have presented the Bill all say that they know that it does have an impact on victims—they have pleaded that they understand that and are trying to take it into account in every way possible—and even though the supposed source of the measure, the 2003 Hillsborough document, said that there would be proper consideration for victims, we can see that that has not happened. The legal requirement of an equality impact assessment has been failed. An existing law and the Good Friday agreement have been broken in the presentation of this Bill, which we are told flows from that agreement, because the commitments in equality impact assessments and equality schemes stem directly from the agreement. The Bill is another example of the Good Friday agreement being breached.

Worse than all that, victims remain voiceless in the process set out in the Bill, as the hon. Members for North Down and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said. Victims have no say in the process. That is why we tabled amendment No. 154, to which the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has already spoken. The amendment obliges the certification commissioner to make arrangements for informing victims from the moment of application, not just from the moment that a decision is taken to grant the application. It is wrong that schedule 1 only envisages information being given to applicants after the decision on the application has been taken. That is closing the door after the horse has bolted.

Amendment No. 237 is designed to qualify paragraph 5(3) of schedule 1. Sub-paragraph (3) obliges the certification commissioner to withhold information from a victim where there is “a danger” to the safety of any person. We have grave difficulties with any limit being placed on giving information to victims, but if there is to be one, it should be based on the concept of “an unacceptable danger”. There might often be some danger in naming individuals, but that danger may well be slight and it has to be counter-balanced by the public need to know.

Those principles are well accepted in criminal trials, where people are charged and named. That is deemed acceptable in the wider interest of justice. The same principles should apply in the scheme, not least because the people involved will be voluntarily applying for a certificate under the legislation—that will be their choice. If they wish to preserve their anonymity, they can simply not apply for a certificate, take their chances in the ordinary criminal justice system, and see whether they are charged and how things proceed.

Other hon. Members have tabled amendments to clauses 4 and 6 that support the victim’s right to know, and we are generally supportive of them. We have tabled similar amendments, such as amendments Nos. 239 and 240, which oblige the notification of others such as the Chief Constable, the public and the police ombudsman, but they have been grouped elsewhere as they are arguably broader in scope than the amendments in the present group. Others of our amendments have been selected in this group, such as amendments Nos. 246 and 247, which oblige the Secretary of State to give notice of the suspension of a licence and the reasons for it to the victim and the public; they also oblige the appeals commissioners, to whom an appeal can be brought regarding the suspension of a licence, to give notice of the suspension and the reasons for it to the public. The amendments are designed simply to give reassurance to victims that they will not be the last to know, as they were in respect of this legislation.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor.

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 59, 64, 52, 53 and 88. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) and I are broadly in favour of all the amendments in this group and do not intend to press our own this afternoon. I do not intend to speak separately to amendment No. 88, as it is related to amendments Nos. 59 and 64. I will speak separately to amendments Nos. 52 and 53, then move on to amendments Nos. 59 and 64.

The purpose of amendment Nos. 52 and 53 is to tie the interests of the victims more closely into the provisions of the Bill. No one should underestimate the terrible pain and distress that many people in Northern Ireland have suffered. We have a responsibility to ensure that the Bill does not cause them more sorrow and anguish than they have already had to endure. It is a rare terrorist offence in Northern Ireland that affects only one person; usually, many people are touched by it—not only those who have been injured, both psychologically and physically, but their friends and families. Indeed, a whole community can be devastated by a single such event, and everyone who is affected by an event should be considered a victim of it.

The idea behind the amendments is simple. If they were accepted, the Government would establish a victim impact assessment panel made up of experts such as psychologists, social workers and police liaison officers, who would meet the victims of offences to assess the effects of those offences and the potential effect of the Bill’s provisions. The victims of violence in Northern Ireland have suffered enough and they should not have to suffer again.

Amendments Nos. 59 and 64 are probing. In paragraph 5(1) of schedule 1, there is a duty on the certification commissioner

“to secure that appropriate arrangements are made for giving information to victims about the case of each person who is granted a certificate of eligibility.”

Although we believe that it is up to the commissioner to decide how he or she will inform victims of progress on cases that relate to their situation, we want to make absolutely sure that the information is given to them promptly so that there is no chance of their finding out about events via the press when they should be told about them by other means. That is why there should be express provision in the Bill for the certification commissioner to inform victims at the same time as he informs the Secretary of State and other officials, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, of the state of a case.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor, and I hope that you will show some understanding. I, a parliamentary apprentice, have been asked to take the lead on a series of amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, even though I might not have his eloquence or expertise.

I hope that this series of amendments will find greater acceptance among Government Members than earlier ones have. One thing has become fairly clear during our discussions on Tuesday and this morning. Even some Labour Members—three or four of them, although I do not have their names written down—have expressed the belief that the Bill will help to bring about “closure”, or to “draw a line under” all the trauma experienced by victims. Those are unfortunate phrases, and I do not like that language, but it is the language that they used. A common theme of today’s amendments—whether tabled by the SDLP, the hon. Member for North Down, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats—is that they are all designed to help to deal with victims’ concerns. As there seems to be a common view in Committee that we should aim to address the concerns and fears of victims, I hope that many of the amendments in this group will have an easier passage than other amendments have done.

Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 would ensure that a victim is informed when a certificate is applied for. That is essential. Many people do not know who committed the crime against their relative or themselves, or why they committed it, and so on. The amendments are designed to ensure that when someone applies for a certificate, the victims are at least notified of that. They could then find out the details, such as who made the application and what the crime was. If they wished—and if subsequent amendments are made—they could then find out more about that crime.

If Labour Members intend to ensure that there is some closure for victims, surely they accept that such amendments will better ensure that that happens. What could be worse than for a victim to find out months later that the perpetrator of the crime against them or their family has sneaked into the office, applied for and got a certificate, and, the matter having gone to a tribunal, got a licence?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The very scenario that the hon. Gentleman just outlined is covered by schedule 1, which deals with the certification commissioner. He will see that paragraph 5(1) states:

“It is the duty of the commissioner to secure that appropriate arrangements are made for giving information to victims about the case of each person who is granted a certificate”.

Once the certificate is granted, individual victims are informed of that; they are given the progress. Therefore, the circumstances that he outlined will not occur.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that point, because it brings me on to later amendments.

I will jump to one of the other proposals, new clause 2. It is one thing to say that the victim will be informed after the event—after the certificate has been given—but our proposals seek to ensure that when the certificate has been applied for, even at that stage, the victim has the opportunity to make representations. They cannot know about things and cannot avail themselves of that opportunity—if new clause 2 is accepted—if they do not know in the first place that the certificate has been applied for.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to new clause 3.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am sorry, I meant new clause 3. I appreciate your drawing that to my attention, Mr. Taylor. As I said, I am an apprentice on these matters and I got lost.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

1, 2, 3.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

My adding up was never very good.

Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 refer to either the suspension or the revocation of a licence and are also designed to ensure that victims are informed. If someone who has been granted a licence has misbehaved in some way and has had the licence suspended or is to have it taken away altogether, the victim should know that the person has misbehaved.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

There is a crucial distinction between what the hon. Gentleman is outlining and the provisions in the Bill as drafted. What he is outlining would mean that victims would be informed before a certificate was granted whereas the Bill suggests that they would be informed only after one had been granted. Does he agree that the Minister must explain why he does not want victims to be able to make representations before? Is it because he does not want victims to be able to influence the certification process? If so, is that not a huge injustice to them?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. When we examine the totality of this legislation, we see that is not designed to address the hurt of the victims. It is designed to address the demands of Sinn Fein and of republicans, who demanded the legislation in the first place. That is why there is a vacuum and no proactive role for the victims in the legislation.

New clause 3 sets out the requirement that where a certificate has been applied for there is an opportunity for the victim or their family to make representations, which relates to exactly the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt). There would be a proactive role for the victim in highlighting before the certificate is applied for just how horrendous the crime was and in perhaps making representations on why a certificate should not be granted in a particular case.

New clause 4 refers to the victims’ role in the special tribunal. At present, the only role for the victim in the special tribunal is that they could, in certain circumstances, be summoned to give evidence that might or might not be designed to be helpful in getting a licence for the person who perpetrated the crime. There is no proactive role for the victim; they cannot go to the tribunal, face the guilty person and ask for their representations to be taken into account before a licence is granted. New clause 4 would give the victim that role. If we are talking about giving victims an opportunity to have closure, to have their story told and to face the person who perpetrated the crime, surely there can be no objection to the new clause. It fits in perfectly with what I heard Labour Members tell us on Tuesday was the reason why the Bill is essential, even though it is obnoxious and they vote for it through gritted teeth. The Bill helps to move things on—another terrible phrase—in Northern Ireland, they say. If that is the purpose, the new clause is one practical way to achieve it.

New clause 6 is important because it gives an opportunity, especially when a victim knows the person who committed the crime that affected their family, as often happens in Northern Ireland. Under the Bill as it stands, there is no need for anyone to apply for a certificate within a certain time limit: they can sit there until they think that the police are about to catch up with them, or until their conscience—if they have one—catches up with them, or they decide to come forward for some other reason. New clause 6 would make it possible for the victim to take a proactive role in bringing closure by letting them demand that the tribunal try their case.

All the amendments and new clauses are reasonable. They should not jeopardise the Bill in any way, although Labour Members are concerned about that. They will address all the issues that other Committee members have raised so eloquently—perhaps more eloquently than I have done. I commend all the amendments and new clauses.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I join others in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor. The Committee is in good hands and I hope that you will find, as your colleague Sir Nicholas will have found, that we are all well behaved. You should have no difficulty with us.

I should like to take a wider focus on this issue; in Committee we find ourselves getting so involved in technical issues that we sometimes lose the context of the Bill. We are dealing with a key provision. To be frank, if the Minister is not prepared to give on this issue, I have little hope that he will change anything in this Bill as it proceeds through the House; it will be left to others in another place to bring some sanity to the situation. If the Minister does not move on this issue, he will be in breach of undertakings given publicly by his Government in the past. I shall come to that in a moment.

I should also like to talk to Members on the other side of the Committee—at least, to those from the Government party. I listened to the debate in the Chamber on Second Reading; I even listened during earlier sittings of this Committee to Labour Members making remarks about the need for the Government to consider issues such as the victims and the exiles. Here is their chance. The amendments provide an opportunity for anybody who wants to stand up and be counted on the key issue of whether they are here to produce legislation for terrorists or whether they are prepared to consider victims. If they do not consider the amendments, they will be turning their back on the victims and siding with the terrorists. There is no other way to put it.

At our previous sitting, I was glad that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) urged the Minister to take account of issues relating to victims and to exiles. I remind the Minister that, when the Government eventually published their proposals about on-the-runs in April 2003, they said in the first paragraph that it would be sensible for them to show

“sensitivity to the position of victims.”

Where in any clause or schedule of the Bill is sensitivity shown to victims of terrorism? I suspect that the Minister will have difficulty in showing us.

Who are the victims? They are those who suffered at the hands of the very people who the Minister is attempting to allow to go through a quasi-farce of a judicial process and escape any consequences for their actions, other than having a mark against their name due to a conviction—they would not have to serve a day in prison. The victims are the people who for a long time have had to carry their grief and hurt in ways that have been expressed earlier.

I referred to two personal cases in the House, but I could refer to many more. The names of the sort of people who will benefit from the Bill were published in the newspapers recently, such as Charlie Caulfield who is being sought for the Enniskillen poppy day bombing. Let us think about all the victims who were left behind on that occasion. Rita O’Hare is wanted for questioning for the ambush of British soldiers. Some hon. Members will be aware of Evelyn Glenholmes. He is being sought for several IRA bombings in England in the 1980s. Michael Rogan was suspected of bombing the British Army headquarters in Lisburn during the ceasefire in 1996—the bombing that brought the ceasefire to an end. Michael Quinn managed, no doubt on a false passport, to get to Osnabrück in Germany and is believed to be responsible for the mortar attack. Those are the people that Labour Members are accommodating—I apologise; they are the people that the Government are accommodating—by the Bill. Those people have left victims behind, and those victims should receive some accommodation under the Bill.

The amendments were spoken to ably by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He said that he has difficulty in adding up. That worried me because, in his previous life, he was the head of economics at one of our leading grammar schools in Northern Ireland. Even to this day, he sets the economic papers for exams at A-level. We can imagine the difficulties that that would produce for him.

In speaking to amendments Nos. 14 and 34 to 38, and new clauses 3, 4 and 6, my hon. Friend explained that we were attempting to insert into the Bill various rights for victims, not something that might be bestowed on them by grace and favour or by a commissioner. By that, I mean that victims must have a right to know that an application has been submitted before certification takes place. They must have a right to make representations before an appeal and to the certification officer, and a right to have themselves heard when an appeal is held against a case when it comes to a suspension or the revocation process. Indeed, they must have the right to make a case before a sentence is determined at the special tribunal.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said in the early days that he would test the absurd contradictions of the Bill. New clause 6 does that. It says, “Okay. The Government want to give the right to use the Bill to terrorists. Let us also allow victims to use it.” If the Government are saying that closure is a good thing, let us have closure for the victims. We time-limit the use of the certification process in another amendment, and new clause 6 does not make sense unless we look at that. People must apply within six months, after which the victims or their next of kin can apply to have a case heard if the police believe that they have sufficient evidence; then the person can be apprehended and if they decide not to go to court, they lose their rights. If the Government think that it is right to have court cases heard at the behest of a terrorist in absentia, victims’ cases should also be heard in absentia if we follow their logic.

I urge the Committee seriously to consider the victims. “Victim” is not a term that should used in passing to try to calm people down, by saying, “Oh yes, we are concerned about victims”, after which people go on to do what they were going to do in the first place. It is essential that provisions are included in the Bill to ensure that victims have rights too. If the Minister is not prepared to accept that, he has only one interest, which is to serve those with whom he or his colleagues did a deal in 2001 and 2003, namely the army council of the IRA.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

The Committee will be aware that there are a large number of amendments in this group. It would help the Chair if Committee members who want a separate Division on any amendment, other than the lead amendment, informed me in good time before the end of this part of the debate.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Thank you, Mr. Taylor. On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome you to the Chair this afternoon in what you will understand, because you will already have had a taste of it, is a difficult Bill, with some difficult issues being discussed.

I shall begin by explaining to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members what the Government are trying to do in relation to victims. I realise that some of these matters relate to later clauses and schedules—and I hope that you will bear with me patiently, Mr. Taylor—but given the flavour of the discussion, I want to refer to them.

My hon. Friends will be aware that, in terms of the certification commissioner and his or her responsibilities, and the special prosecutor and his or her responsibilities, the Government have been keen to include under paragraph 5 of schedule 1, and under paragraph 6 of schedule 6, specific responsibilities to ensure that once the certificate has been granted victims are kept informed about the progress of the certificate. The Government have ensured that once the individual who receives the certificate goes to a special tribunal, which we will deal with under later clauses, the special prosecutor who is appointed to handle the case has a duty to maintain liaison with victims. Those two aspects have been placed in the Bill at the specific request of the ministerial team that has dealt with the Bill since May this year. I hope that hon. Members will reflect on that when we consider the schedules later in the Bill.

It will not have escaped Committee members’ notice—particularly those with Northern Ireland constituencies—that on 1 December this year, less than one week ago, Bertha McDougall took up her position as victims commissioner in Northern Ireland. That new Government appointment has been brought forward to help support, liaise with, work with and represent victims’ interests in the difficult matters before the Government today, and in the difficult matters of victims’ rights and responsibilities and the effect of the political peace process on victims. For those Committee members who do not know, Bertha McDougall is the widow of a former police officer who was murdered, and is a victim herself. That position is in place because the Government are keen to ensure that victims are at the heart of the political peace process, taking the situation forward.

I do not want, under any circumstances, Committee members to think that even though I cannot accept some of the amendments, the Government are not concerned about our rights and responsibilities to victims. There is the establishment of the victims commissioner, the two schedules and the effect in the Bill of giving victims a role in both the certification process and in the special tribunal. [Interruption.] I will come on to that point in a moment.

I will answer the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim. Once the certificate is granted there is, under paragraph 5 to schedule 1, an opportunity for the certification commissioner to keep the victim informed about the progress regarding the certificate, as there is under later schedules with regard to the special prosecutor.

Today’s debate has focused on two specific issues. The first is what consultation we undertake in the appointment of the certification commissioner in the first place. That relates to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down, which I will deal with in a moment. The second is what the victim’s involvement should be and what discussions they should have with Government and the state before the certificate is awarded. There are also the questions that come up regarding the victim impact statement in the tribunal. I will deal with all three issues in turn, to assist the Committee.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Lady would ensure that we consult three bodies—the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Human Rights Commission and the victims commissioner that has recently been established—before the certification commissioner is appointed. As I said, I want there to be a wide consensus on the certification commissioner and for him to have wide support when, in due course, he operates in this difficult and sensitive area.

I am grateful for the consideration that the hon. Lady has given, because the points that she raised are important. I would fully expect that following the normal statutory appointment procedure that we must follow for this type of position, the Secretary of State will, as I have mentioned, discuss matters and ensure that there is consensus with a range of bodies. I am fairly confident that the Secretary of State will discuss the nature of the appointment with the individuals mentioned in the hon. Lady’s amendment at some point in time. The amendment would restrict matters and ensure that the Secretary of State had to consult just three bodies. I want wide consensus. The proposal restricts, rather than focuses on, the potential for consensus and discussion.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The Minister made that argument in a previous sitting: where somebody is stated, everybody else is excluded from being consulted. I do not believe that the argument works. If three organisations or people are labelled, it means that they must be consulted. It does not mean that we cannot consult anyone else; it means that there is a mandatory obligation to consult those three at least. If a victims feels denied and feels that they have not been able to get their message across, they can go at least to one of those three bodies, which they know will be obliged at some point to link in with the commissioner.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

On this specific point, we are talking about the appointment of the commissioner. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down concerns who the Secretary of State consults—following the statutory appointment procedure that we must follow—in order for the certification commissioner to be appointed. Who has to be consulted?

The hon. Lady focused on three groups of people who must be consulted before the appointment of the certification commissioner is made. I believe that to list statutory consultees in this way will shut down the options for consultation, because it will place doubt over the possibility of consulting others. [Hon. Members: “How?”] That is my view. That is a judgment that I have had to make and the one that will be tested, if need be, by a Division on the amendment in due course.

In answer to the hon. Lady’s specific question, I have no doubt that the Chief Constable will be consulted, because the Chief Constable will have to be satisfied about the appointment in terms of security clearance. I do not wish to put that suggestion into legislation although that will be the effect of the discussion that we are having today.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Minister has said that he is “fairly confident” that the Secretary of State will consult the Human Rights Commission and the victims commissioner, and perhaps the Chief Constable. What possible objection could there be to putting such a provision in the Bill? It should be added to it in black and white, so that we can all be entirely confident, instead of the Minister telling us that he is fairly confident.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If I accepted the amendment and we listed those three individuals and organisations, that will not necessarily exclude others, but it will raise a question about consultation with others and the validity of such consultations. I am trying to ensure that we have widespread consensus. Therefore, I am unable to agree to the hon. Lady’s amendment.

There has been discussion about amendments that seek information for victims at the point of application to the commissioner. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury mentioned that, as did other Members, and amendment No. 154 addresses it. I am keen for victims to be consulted and involved, as under paragraph 5 of schedule 1, once the certificate has been granted. However, some serious problems and issues would arise if we were to adopt the amendments that allowed victims to be involved in discussions before the certificate was granted. I hope that Members will reflect on this matter.

At the stage at which an application is made to the certification commissioner, the applicant need be neither suspected of, nor charged with, the offence. The applicant might just believe that there are grounds for an offence, and they will only get the certificate once the charge has been made. It would be wrong to publish information about an applicant that could put them in some danger. Furthermore, if information were provided to the public about an application, and information were further provided about whether a certificate was actually issued, knowledge would be made public about a person—perhaps even that they failed to achieve the certificate. As we come on to later clauses, Mr. Taylor, you will see that they restrict eligibility in respect of conditions for application to the scheme.

Let me paint a scenario. An individual applies to the certification commissioner for a certificate; if these amendments were accepted, the certification commissioner could tell a victim about that. There are two possible further scenarios. A victim might have been murdered by a paramilitary. If that were to become public knowledge, it could put the individual applying for the certificate in some danger; at present, such information regarding that crime might not be publicly known. Also, the application for a certificate might well ultimately be turned down. Under the eligibility criteria, the certificate can be turned down for any number of reasons; that is the case if the Bill remains in its current form. One of the reasons for turning it down might be that the individual was a member of a specified organisation, such as the Ulster Volunteer Force or the Loyalist Volunteer Force, or Continuity IRA or the Real IRA. Making that public knowledge could put that individual’s life at risk.

Regardless of what our feelings might be about the individuals involved in such cases, I do not wish there to be a situation whereby applications are made for certificates and information is put into the public domain before that certificate is granted, even though I understand why the hon. Member for Belfast, East and other Members wish victims to be informed. I believe that the time for victims to be involved is when the certificate is granted, as under paragraph 5 of schedule 1, because at that stage the victim knows that an individual has been charged with a crime, has been granted a certificate and will enter the tribunal system. The victim will then be kept informed as to the progress of the case.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The Minister says that when the certificate is granted, the person will have been charged. Is that entirely correct? Clause 3(2)(a)(i) states that one of the eligibility criteria is that members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland

“have had since before 1st November 2005, reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant to be guilty of an offence”.

I am not trying to trip the Minister up, but, in his view, is that the same as being charged?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Not necessarily. The point I am making, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept, is that at the time that the certificate is granted there are reasonable grounds for believing that an individual has committed an offence, or they have been charged in respect of that offence. At that stage, under schedule 1, the victim can be informed about progress on the case. When the case progresses to the special tribunal, which we will deal with under later clauses, the special prosecutor has a duty to keep the victim informed on the progress of the case, so at that stage the victim is informed about how the case is progressing. But at the stage before that—and that is the stage that the amendment addresses—the certification commissioner might not grant a certificate. For reasons that have been mentioned, an individual may believe that they are likely to be charged, but may not actually be charged with an offence.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am glad that we cleared that up. The Minister says that, at that point, there will be reasonable grounds for believing that a person has committed the offence. Surely if someone makes an application, he has reasonable grounds for believing that he committed the offence.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That is perfectly correct, but at that stage the police may not have sufficient information to charge the person—

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

But we are not talking about being charged; I just said that.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make an intervention, will he please do so properly?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I say to hon. Members that, when a person applies to the certification commissioner, in many cases charges will not have been brought. There may be grounds for arrest, but in some cases there may not even be that. The point is that applying to the certification commissioner is a separate procedure. In my assessment, it is important that the victim is informed when a certificate has been granted in relation to a specific offence or alleged offence. When the individual goes to court, it is important that the special prosecutor keeps the victim informed on how the case is progressing, but the pre-certification procedure cannot justifiably involve the victims, for the range of reasons that I have outlined.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Can the Minister explain how it could possibly mitigate the deep sense of injustice felt by victims if the point when they are informed about the process is the point when a perpetrator is made immune from arrest?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If the certificate is granted, the individual will almost certainly progress to the second stage of the process, which is the special tribunal. It is important that victims are informed when an individual is granted the certificate, and it is important that that process be taken through to the special tribunal. Involving victims before the certification commissioner grants a certificate is fraught with difficulty for the reasons that I outlined.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is, of course, entirely possible that when the Bill comes back from another place, conditions will have been included in clause 3, and that they might include the right of a commissioner to refuse a certificate because of torture or some other issue. If that were so, surely it would be right to allow victims the opportunity to put a case to the commissioner before a decision was taken, so that someone could say, “You shouldn’t allow a certificate in this case, because look what happened to my husband.” They might be able to argue a case with greater knowledge than anybody else.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I will not speculate on what might happen to amendments in another place. If any amendments are made, the Government will have to reflect on them and assess the legislation as a whole in light of them. Someone of the hon. Gentleman’s experience will know that any legislation has to secure the support of both Houses of Parliament. The end product, whenever it finally arrives, will be subject to consideration by both Houses, so I cannot speculate on what amendments may be made.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Can the Minister go over the scenario that he painted? He said that a person might apply for a certificate, but that it might be wrong to inform the victim, because that person might never be found guilty, or a case against them might not proceed. I know that the Minister is clutching at straws, but why would the person have applied for a certificate in the first place if they did not feel that they were guilty of some crime?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It is possible that an individual might believe that they were in part responsible for an incident, but that the PSNI would not have an interest in that individual in respect of it.

I know that the examples are extreme, but the essence of this debate is whether a victim should be informed when the certificate is granted and follow through the system to the tribunal from that stage. Should the certification commissioner have a responsibility to make sure that victims are informed once the certificate is granted, through to prosecution, or should victims be informed before the certificate is granted? Openly and honestly, the Government’s view is that victims should become involved when the certificate is granted because that, not the application for the scheme, is the start of the process.

Mark Hendrick (Labour, Preston)

It is not unknown in the British legal system for certain people to try to take the rap for another person. If the police did not have information or proof that the person applying for a certificate was indeed the criminal or terrorist, such a thing could happen.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

That is a very good example; later, we shall come to amendments in respect of those very points.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is not.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I say to the hon. Gentleman that the point made by my hon. Friend is important. For example, Committee members can think of several key figures in various circles who may or may not have been involved in incidents in the past. It may well be possible for an individual to say that they have committed a particular offence and for the police service to have no evidence of that. That individual could undertake to be the fall guy and take the rap; that is possible.

The key point is that the certificate is granted because the individual has been accepted to qualify for the scheme. At that stage, the victim should be informed, consulted and involved, as under schedule 1.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

Can the Minister explain something? If somebody were in prison now for a crime that had been committed before 1998 and somebody else came forward and said, “I did it, not that person in prison” and was able somehow to link himself to that crime, would that expedite the release of the prisoner?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

No, it would not. At the end of the day, it would be down to the police service to provide evidence to that effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) is making the point that an individual might come forward and say, “I was involved in an incident” when the police did not believe that they were, and that that individual could accept responsibility for certain things.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister could help us if, difficult though it might be, he attempted to equate the procedures that he is asking the Committee to consider with real law as it stands. In the present circumstances, the person would be brought into a police station, questioned and charged. All that would be public knowledge; victims across the whole world would know that it was happening. Why is he attempting to protect these particular terrorists?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

An individual is not always named at the time of their arrest. On many occasions, it is said in the public domain that, for example, two gentlemen have been brought in for questioning. Their names would not be brought into the public domain, although they would be if the men were charged and taken to trial. The Government have put in specific legislation to ensure that the victim will be involved from when the certificate is granted until when the special tribunal becomes involved.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I do not want to prolong the Minister’s agony, but I should like to ask a simple yes-no question. Do the Government intend to apply exactly the same conditions to all terrorist suspects? It is important that we get confirmation that the Government would be consistent on this issue, not only in Northern Ireland, but elsewhere. Otherwise, there will be no logic in what the Government are putting forward for Northern Ireland.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. We are not able to widen the debate beyond Northern Ireland.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Taylor. This is an act of faith. I asked that question because, as I have said during previous sittings, there will be unintended consequences owing to the differential between the legislation in Northern Ireland and that applying elsewhere. If there are inconsistencies, although we might not be able to go further into the consequences now, we will have to investigate them to ensure that Northern Ireland terrorists cannot use them as a means of getting out of a bind there.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Turning to the other amendments—

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

This will be the final time that I intervene on this matter. When the applicant applies for a certificate, two conditions that must be met before it is granted are that he

“does not support a specified organisation”

and

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

Might not the victim be able to provide some useful evidence in that respect?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The certification commissioner has to make an assessment. Again, the objectivity of the test is meant to be the central point for the certification commissioner to consider. The victim might or might not have objective information relating to that, but the certification commissioner will have to determine the criteria based on the objectivity that we have in later clauses.

Let me try to reassure hon. Members that victims are very important in the process. That is why we have specifically allowed for victims in relation to the certification commissioner, assessment and the special tribunal, and why, from 1 December, the victims commissioner has been in place in Northern Ireland to represent the needs and interests of victims, as well as to work with individuals such as the potential certification commissioner on such issues.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am sorry that the Minister seems so exasperated—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

No, no.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I am sorry. The Minister’s body language indicates that he is exasperated, but I am glad to know he is not and that he is enjoying himself. If he is enjoying himself, perhaps he will explain what his ministerial colleague, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, means by this? Yesterday—so, very recently—under the heading “Hain pledges support to victims and witnesses of crime”, the Northern Ireland Office was still quoting a statement that the Secretary of State made on 20 July:

“Providing quality support to victims and witnesses is crucial if they are to be enabled to make an effective contribution to bringing perpetrators to justice.”

This Bill is not bringing perpetrators to justice; it is giving them an amnesty. If it is the articulated position of the Secretary of State that victims and witnesses are to be given a crucial role and to make an effective contribution towards bringing to justice those who are guilty of the most heinous crimes, why on earth is the Minister defending the position under which the victims, and perhaps witnesses, are written out until after the certificate is given?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

First, may I assure the hon. Lady that I am not exasperated at all? I just talk with my hands. That is what I do, and it is nothing personal. As I have said to her and to all hon. Members, I am happy to stay here for as long as possible—until 4 o’clock on 15 December. The pace at which we debate the Bill is entirely in the hands of the Opposition, and I am relaxed about that. There is no exasperation at all. I flap my arms around; that is the nature of the business.

In response to the specific question, I can tell the hon. Lady that the Secretary of State and I regard victims and witnesses as being important in the process. Once a certificate is granted, when the tribunal occurs, the victims and the witnesses will have an opportunity to give evidence, if they are an appropriate person to do so, as part of that judicial process. I put that point to the Committee; that is where we are.

I am anxious to move on to respond to other points made during the debate. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle mentioned the equality impact assessment. He has raised the issue with me outside the Committee, and I agree that it is important. An equality screening exercise was undertaken by law. It examined and considered the impact on victims as well as on suspects and those who might be affected by the legislation. There was no evidence that certain groups are disproportionately affected, because there is no evidence to suggest that victims necessarily know which suspects are eligible or which offences they have committed. I recognise the point he made about the potential impact of this policy issue for the victims, but the Government’s assessment is that we have undertaken equality screening. We are satisfied that it has been done.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

First, I thank the Minister for giving way. He referred to our private conversation about this matter. The answer that he has given now is different from the information that I was given previously. I was told that the impact assessment that was conducted considered only those who would be applying and that the judgment was made that that did not affect or impact on victims. Can the paper from the equality screening test be put in the Library of the House of Commons, so that we can satisfy ourselves whether victims were considered, to what degree and by whom?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I say to my hon. Friend that one reason that I mentioned our private conversation, even though it is not normal practice to put such things in the public domain, is that the advice at the time, when we discussed the matter with other Government Members, was as he understood it, but, on reflection and having investigated this matter—

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The story changed.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

No, it has not changed. Having investigated this matter—[Interruption.] No. There are occasions when we have discussions on which the Government are trying to be helpful. I answered the point in a private discussion, with officials present, as part of the briefing on the Bill that we gave to all political parties. Since then, officials have examined the situation that the hon. Gentleman raised and discovered that the equality assessment was undertaken. I am trying to correct the impression that was given. That is an attempt to be helpful, not disingenuous.

I will reflect on this issue, if I may, because I am not sure of the precedent on making equality exercises public. If it is possible, I will do what the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Given the time it takes to reflect and to check such things out, and given that the story has changed as to whether the screening took account of victims, I would like to know when we might have the answer. I cannot for the life of me understand how any equality screening test took account of victims. Did that screening test take account of the fact that the victims, disproportionately, are Catholics, nationalists and older people?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Some Members cannot take yes for an answer. I have reflected on what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I cannot take evasion for an answer.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have reflected on what the hon. Gentleman said. Before consideration of the Bill commenced, I offered a private briefing to all political parties and we had a discussion. The hon. Gentleman asked a question; my officials and I gave an answer. On reflection, now that the Bill is before the House, and after checking what we said, we have found that the answer is a different one.

I have put the record straight and offered to reflect on the hon. Gentleman’s request for the screening test to be published. If there is a precedent to publish such statements, I undertake to do that, to write to the hon. Gentleman and Committee members, and to place a copy in the Library. I hope he can now take yes for an answer, because I am trying, as ever, to be helpful to him.

Finally, because we want to make progress, I shall deal with the amendment on victim impact statements at the special tribunal, which was spoken to by the hon. Member for East Antrim. What a fine apprentice he is. I am sure that during consideration of the Bill he will go from strength to strength when putting the Government under pressure on a range of issues.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of whether a victim impact statement should be introduced in a special tribunal. Again, there is an honest disagreement in the Committee about the fact that the special tribunal, under later clauses, is not a Crown court, as hon. Members would wish. When we deal with those later clauses, we will explore those matters in great detail. However, in a normal Crown court situation, a victim impact statement is not presented, so we are not proposing to introduce one for the special tribunal, because in all circumstances we are trying to replicate a Crown court under the special tribunal. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That is crazy. How can the Minister pray that in aid of his argument—the special tribunal is not the Crown court, but we are using the rules of the Crown court?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

We are seeking as far as possible within the Bill to replicate normal Crown court procedures. [Interruption.] I am taking interventions from the Floor, Mr. Taylor.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. I want the Minister to deal with one intervention at a time. Will hon. Members indicate appropriately whether they wish to intervene?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As I said, we are trying to replicate as far as possible normal Crown court procedures, with certain parameters such as trial in absentia—a controversial matter that we will refer to at a later date. I cannot accept the amendment spoken to by the hon. Member for East Antrim because there is no victim impact statement in normal Crown court procedures. We shall debate such matters when we reach the clauses on the Crown court procedure.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Does the Minister not accept the fact that the fundamental difference between a Crown court and a special tribunal is that after the special tribunal there will be no punishment? That is why a victim impact assessment is vital.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I cannot accept that a victim impact statement at the time of the trial is an important element. However, the nature of the crime will be portrayed by the special prosecutor at the tribunal and the impact of the crime on victims will be explored in great detail. A specific victim statement as set out in the amendment is not something that I can accept.

I have tried to answer the points that have been made. If I have missed any, I apologise. I shall conclude by saying what I said at the outset: the establishment last week of a victims commissioner by the Government, and the establishment under paragraph 5 of schedule 1 and paragraph 6 of schedule 6 of specific references to the role of the certification commissioner and the special tribunal, show that the Government are concerned about victims.

My rejection of the amendments is not to diminish that role, but to answer two specific points: on wide consultation, which I want, and on community acceptance of the certification commissioner. I do not want to preclude difficult areas that could be life threatening prior to the certificate being granted.

I urge the hon. Member for North Down to withdraw the amendment; if she does not do so, I shall urge my hon. Friends to reject it.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I can put the Minister out of his misery quickly by saying that, of course, I shall press amendment No. 231 to a Division. I could not possibly withdraw it, because his arguments are completely unconvincing.

The Minister bears a heavy burden of responsibility, but, given that he has responsibility for security, criminal justice and policing in Northern Ireland, I urge him to use his spare time to help him to fulfil his duties by ensuring that he has a better understanding of the legislation that was recently taken through the House by his predecessors. I draw his attention to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

For the record, I am not the Minister with responsibility for policing in Northern Ireland.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I apologise to the Minister, who is quite right. He is not responsible for policing, but he does have responsibility for criminal justice. He has rejected our amendments, which were genuinely intended to be helpful. The Secretary of State should consult three important statutory bodies: the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the victims commissioner and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Whether the Minister has responsibility for policing or not, I say to the Committee that, when recent legislation was taken through the House, it was the Government’s practice to include measures to enable formal consultation with the NIHRC and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland before similar appointments were made. I see no justification for his rejection of the amendments. He has not made a convincing argument to persuade me to withdraw the amendment, so I am forced to press it to a Division. I am sorry that he has not taken the opportunity to improve this ghastly legislation by making consultation—with just three bodies—compulsory.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I, too, am deeply disappointed that the Minister has decided, despite what has been said, to oppose the reasonable amendments that have been tabled. On victims, we are left with the two references that the Minister mentioned. The first is in schedule 1, which provides for victims being informed after a certificate has been granted. The second relates to the special tribunal and schedule 6, which ensures that the special prosecutor will make

“arrangements ... for giving information to victims”.

That is hardly an input for victims as regards having an opportunity to make a case on why the act carried out against them means that someone should not qualify for a certificate or for being granted a licence.

The day before the Committee began, I walked through the centre of town and I happened across a policeman who had once served in my council constituency in east Belfast. I suspect that he had information about the crime carried out against his cousin only because he was in the police. His cousin’s “crime” happened to be that he worked, as a civilian, in an Army base. The news bulletins indicated that the IRA murdered him because he worked where he did. They did not say that before he was murdered he was gratuitously tortured—his teeth and fingernails were pulled out.

Surely to goodness, the victim ought to have the opportunity to go to the special prosecutor and the tribunal and say, “This was not simply some terrorist act. It was a gratuitous act of torture against someone with whom these people happened to disagree.” There is no provision for that, although there is provision for giving information about the progress of the case—I use those cold words—through the tribunal and letting someone know after the event that the people guilty of the crime have had a certificate granted.

Once the certificate is granted, it stops the police questioning, searching, arresting, fingerprinting, taking statements from individuals and doing anything to build up a case against them. The stage at which the certificate is being applied for—when the blocking mechanism for any further investigation and use of investigatory tools by the police is being applied for—by the person concerned is when the Minister ought to give victims their opportunity.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Can my hon. Friend unravel the Minister’s comments for me? Repeatedly, to suggest that the Government have taken into account the views of victims, he has said, “But look, we have appointed a victims commissioner.” However, the Government are refusing, by rejecting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down, to give a role to the very victims commissioner that the Minister prays in aid.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which refers to one of the many contradictions. The Minister has made two arguments. I know that he has to argue for a shoddy Bill, but it is absurd to say that he cannot accept an amendment that would enable victims to have an early input when the certificate is applied for because someone who has admitted their guilt by applying for a certificate might be wrongly dealt with, or the case might not proceed against them, and we would not want anyone to try to prevent them from getting a certificate.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the absurdity is that a Walter Mitty character who walked in and tried to own up to something would not be eligible under clause 3(2) because he would not be eligible as, or seen as, an applicant? Under clause 3(3), two reasons for not granting a certificate are being either a still-active terrorist or a member of a specified organisation.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The whole argument is absurd. We come to the second absurdity. I am sure that we will hear more of this when some amendments are moved later today or next week, but the Minister has been at pains to say that this could not be a Crown court, which is why these special arrangements have been made for a quasi-judicial tribunal, when it suits. It suits because the perpetrators of these crimes do not want to face the consequences and the effects of what they have done on the victims. When it suits, however, the rules of a Crown court apply, so the victim does not get the opportunity to make an impact assessment.

I do not know whether the policeman who stopped me in Belfast city centre would ever have wanted to relate the effect that the murder of his cousin had on his family, but he should at least have that opportunity.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Like other hon. Members who have tabled amendments, I am not entirely surprised that the Minister has refused the amendments, given the whole character of the background to the Bill. The fact is, however, that there is nothing more that the Minister or anyone other Government Member can say about victims that can be believed. That may be the only reason why I would not be minded to press some of the other amendments to a Division, because to do so would simply be to ask for serial dishonesty and serial insults against victims.

People use hollow words and hollow phrases about putting the victims at the centre of things and showing sensitivity to them, but judging by what we are being told in Committee today, it is almost as though we must be afraid of them—as though it would be dangerous to give the victims information. Suddenly the victims, not the perpetrators, are the danger. We are told that the Bill is necessary to ensure that we will have peace and that there will be no more victims. Yet we are told that the information cannot be given, because that may lead to there being more victims.

We are told that the Bill will seal the peace and take us somewhere over the rainbow where there will be no more paramilitaries and no more threats, yet we are also told that the victims cannot be considered because of all the paramilitarism, all the violence and all the ugly threat of violence that will be there in the future. The Government cannot have it both ways about whether or not the Bill will give us progress and a brighter future—“Let us put violence behind us,” they say. They certainly cannot have it both ways in relation to victims.

The amendments are fairly innocuous—they may mean very little in practice to victims—but accepting them would at least be some minor concession to them. Yet the Government are flatly rejecting them. Yet again, not even a dimple has been allowed on a monstrosity as far as the victims are concerned. Instead, we get these weasel words, and no matter how warm the Minister or anyone else tries to make them, they simply do not wash with anyone.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the inclusion in schedule 1 of the certification commissioner having a duty to respond to victims, the inclusion in schedule 6 of the special prosecutor having responsibility for victims, or the Government establishing the victims commissioner from 1 December are weasel words?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In a word, yes. The Government have refused to accept even a reference in the Bill to the victims commissioner that they created. That was a very simple test of whether the victims commissioner meant anything or counted for anything, but it was snuffed out.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Is not our frustration due to the fact that although the Minister and the Government have repeatedly said that they are trying to be consensual and trying to listen to and to consult all sides, to date in the progress of the Bill there has not been a single example of their acceptance of feedback or even consensual advice coming from all sides of the Committee to modify the Bill? That makes us a little sceptical.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I take that point fully. We know what the Bill is a product of. The NIO-Sinn Fein pact thickens as the debate goes on and as events take place elsewhere: in a court in Belfast today, prosecutions were withdrawn in the public interest. No doubt, the special prosecutor will in future be able to withdraw prosecutions in the public interest.

I return to the question that the Minister asked me in his intervention. In addition to his point about the victims commissioner, he talked about the provisions elsewhere in the Bill on victims at least being contacted and informed of things. The Committee should remember that such information as might go to victims might be about anonymous people, because other provisions in the Bill provide that the Secretary of State can ensure that no information about the applicant goes anywhere. In addition, the Secretary of State will also be able to suppress any information about the crime—no doubt, on public interest grounds. Therefore, contact could be made with victims telling them that a certificate has been granted and telling them about the supposed progress of a case and an unnamed person, with no details being disclosed. That is what victims get—contact that tells them nothing and means nothing. That is all that we are being offered. That is giving people stone for bread and it is an absolute insult to victims. It should be an insult to the self-respect of any Member of this House to go along with that pretence.

Schedule 1 - Certification commissioner

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I rise to argue that schedule 1 should not be included in the Bill, and I say so having listened with patience to the Minister’s explanation regarding the certification commissioner. He has not explained what criteria will be used to appoint the certification commissioner. I am particularly offended that we are being asked to vote through, in the schedule, the expenditure of public money. Paragraph 3 says:

“The Secretary of State is to pay such remuneration, fees and allowances as he considers appropriate to, or in respect of, the commissioner.”

I hope that hon. Members will join me in refusing to support the schedule, when we know that the certification commissioner will not enjoy public confidence in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that, when the Minister was given the opportunity under the previous set of amendments to improve the status of, and respect for, the certification commissioner, he did not take it. If the Bill makes it to the statute books, the Minister will remember that he was offered a prime opportunity to enhance the reputation and stature of the certification commissioner. The words “The Secretary of State should take the advice of” did not appear in the amendment; there was simply a duty to consult the Northern Ireland victims commissioner, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Chief Constable of the PSNI. The Minister has single-handedly refused to accept that amendment. We are invited under schedule 1 to agree to the spending of public money on the pay, remuneration, fees and allowances of a certification commissioner.

As I say, the Minister has refused to enhance the status of that commissioner, however ghastly his job will be. The second reason why I am particularly aggrieved is that in an earlier exposition on the difference between the appeals commissioners and the certification commissioner the Minister himself, as anyone who checks Hansard will see, drew attention, perhaps inadvertently, to the fact that under clause 13

“the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of the commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.”

Perhaps the Minister will explain that. For whatever reason, nowhere in the Bill—not in clause 2 and certainly not in the schedule—is there an indication that the certification commissioner should command widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland. Without any justification, the Minister differentiated one office holder, the certification commissioner, who will be handsomely paid public money, and the appeals commissioners, who clause 13 states should command widespread acceptance.

I cannot in conscience support schedule 1 unless the Minister stands up and explains why there are such significant differences. Even if he does, I shall vote against it and encourage others to do so. This is a heavy responsibility; we are to spend public money on someone who will never command widespread public acceptance in Northern Ireland. I ask Committee members to look into their consciences and support me in rejecting schedule 1.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Schedule 1 sets out the related appointments and duties of the certification commissioner, such as the terms of the establishment of the office of the commissioner, including tenure, remuneration, allowances, staff and premises and it gives the Secretary of State discretion in that respect. It also obliges the commissioner to produce an annual report to the House of Commons on his or her activities during the year. We have considered and discussed the amendments relating to victims and clause 2 has been accepted. The schedule also provides for information for victims and for the certification commissioner office’s role. The schedule includes a parliamentary disqualification for the holder of the post: no Member of Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly, of the Scottish Parliament or of the Welsh Assembly can hold the post of certification commissioner.

I say to the hon. Member for North Down that I am happy to take questions, but we have covered the role of the certification commissioner in detail. I know that she wanted the work of the Committee to go further on the issue of victims and that we have had difficulties today in our discussion of that issue. However, if she votes against the schedule, she will vote against part 5 of the Bill, which is about giving information to victims, as well as against the establishment of the post, the annual report to Parliament and the parliamentary disqualification. I am sure that, on reflection, she would not wish to do that.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

As the Bill stands, the existence of the certification commissioner is without any limit in time. Unless the Bill is amended, for years to come, only when a person has a turn of conscience or the PSNI eventually gets sufficient information on them might they apply for a certificate of eligibility. In voting on the schedule, we may be voting the office of the certification commissioner through for years to come, which means that we shall have to pay for it for years to come. How much does the Minister estimate that it will cost the public Exchequer? How much are my constituents and the people of Northern Ireland being asked to pay for this wretched office?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As yet, we have not set a final salary for the post, nor have we established what back-up and support will be required, because that will depend on the work load. If the hon. Lady will allow me, however, I can give the example of the chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, whose current salary is in the region of £55,000 to £70,000 per annum. We anticipate that the chief certification commissioner’s salary will fall within that range, although we would be prepared to pay more for an exceptional candidate if necessary.

I envisage the commissioner being supported by a very small secretariat, which would potentially be headed by a former or current senior civil servant. It might also provide support for the appeals commissioners. In managing the progress of the post with the Secretary of State, I shall be looking to restrict costs as far as possible. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some idea. We have left paragraphs 3 and 4 flexible to give the Secretary of State the necessary flexibility at the time of the appointment.

I give the Committee an undertaking that should the Bill complete its passage through both Houses and receive Royal Assent, I shall lay a ministerial statement before the House prior to the appointment of the certification commissioner. It will detail his annual budget, his salary and the cost of the support mechanism for him so that hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the cost of his post. I hope that that helps to meet the hon. Lady’s concerns.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I want to put it clearly on the record that although the Minister sought to score a point off the hon. Lady by suggesting that she would be voting against a small right for victims if she voted against the schedule, she and everybody who opposes it do so because its provisions are inadequate.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for that intervention, but let me make it clear that I am not trying to score a point off the hon. Member for North Down; I am trying to handle the Committee in a way that achieves consensus and civilised discussion of the points as far as possible. I was simply pointing out that if the hon. Lady votes against the schedule, having already considered clause 2 and put in place the certification commissioner’s role, she will be voting down the salary, the support mechanisms, the annual report to Parliament and the current registration and support for victims. I recognise that she does not feel that some of those provisions are adequate, but if she voted against the provisions on the basis of the simple concern that she initially raised about the salary, that would have implications for other aspects of the Bill. Should the schedule be defeated, the only provision for victims, the commissioner’s salary, the remuneration, the annual report to Parliament and the parliamentary disqualification would not be included, even though the Committee has already agreed to clause 2.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

If the Minister is not prepared to accept the rejection of the schedule, is he prepared to concede anything at all in Committee to strengthen the rights of victims? In keeping with the pattern on previous days, he has been conciliatory in tone but has not been prepared to make a single concession when it comes down to it.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.