Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 15 December 2005.

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill - Standing Committee B

Clause 8 - Trial by Special Tribunal

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 108, in clause 18, page 9, line 39, leave out ‘Special Tribunal’ and insert ‘Crown Court’.

New clause 13—Trial in the Crown Court—

‘(1)A person who holds a certificate of eligibility shall be tried for a certified offence in the Crown Court.

(2)The Crown Court may, not under this section, try any offence that is not a certified offence.

(3)There is an obligation on a defendant to appear before the Crown Court.’.

New clause 17—Trial in the Crown Court (No. 2)—

‘(1)A person who holds a certificate of eligibility shall be tried for the offences certified in that certificate in the Crown Court.

(2)Nothing in this Act shall affect the powers of the Crown Court with regard to the conduct of its proceedings and in particular its power to compel the attendance of the accused.

(3)Notwithstanding the Interception of Communications Act 1985, intercepted communications shall be admissible in proceedings concerning a person who holds a certificate of eligibility and subject to the overriding control of the court may only be adduced by the prosecution.

(4)Intercepted communications shall not be subject to any form of discovery by the accused.’.

New clause 18—Trial in the Crown Court (No. 3)—

‘(1)A person who holds a certificate of eligibility shall be tried for a certified offence in the Crown Court.

(2)There is a legal obligation on a defendant to appear before the Court.

(3)Failure by the defendant to appear before the Court shall constitute a criminal offence.

(4)The Court may impose such trial conditions on the defendant as it deems necessary.’.

This is the penultimate sitting, and my colleague David Taylor will be in the Chair for the final sitting this afternoon. I thank members on both sides of the Committee for their co-operation during the deliberations that I have chaired. The Bill is difficult and controversial, but it appears that we are proceeding satisfactorily, and I hope that that will continue. I thank Hansard, the Clerks, the police and all those who have helped to ensure that the Committee has been able to conduct its business properly.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Welcome back to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. As you will not be serving this afternoon, I should like to say what a pleasure it has been to work under your chairmanship. I thank you for your guidance.

New clause 18 would require defendants to appear before a court. It would make two changes: one is that defendants would be required to appear before a court rather than a tribunal, and the second is that they would be required to appear at all. We had a long debate on whether they should be tried in absentia or be required to appear before the tribunal, and the Minister said that he would go away and think about it. He has had time to do a bit of thinking, if not necessarily to come up with an amendment, but I do not wish to press that point to a vote.

Why is a special tribunal necessary when the court system is already set up and running? The Secretary of State’s explanation in the Chamber on Second Reading was not entirely satisfactory: he said that such proceedings would clog up the court system. I am not sure how he can make that assessment. Given the Minister’s and the Secretary of State’s responses to the questions that we have asked, we do not know how many people will qualify under the scheme. The Secretary of State’s explanation, if it can be called that, was unsatisfactory, so I should like the Minister to explain it.

As the Minister said that he would respond on Report, possibly with an amendment dealing with appearing before the tribunal, my new clause has become nothing more than a probing amendment. I do not intend to press it to a vote, given his reasonable approach, but I should like an explanation of why we must have a completely new system called a tribunal rather than the Crown court.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

I, too, congratulate you on your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas, particularly during the long, dark evening sitting that we had on Tuesday. Your good chairmanship on that evening will not be forgotten by anyone on the Committee.

I support the opinion that clause 8 should not stand part of the Bill, and will speak to new clause 17. I object strongly to the clause remaining part of the Bill, because it invents a new body called the special tribunal. That title gives the impression that it is some august body. In fact, schedule 2, when read with clause 8, indicates that the special tribunal would consist of one person—

“a person who has held high judicial office or office as a county court judge (in Northern Ireland) or circuit judge (in England and Wales).”

Without intending any offence to the person who might take up that post, I believe that it is utterly unacceptable that that person should be a retired judge. The job will require an up-to-date working knowledge of the criminal law, rather than a retired person’s knowledge. The proposal is for very serious criminal offences to be tried and examined by a single person in a special tribunal, and I wonder whether the Minister can say how much experience of the criminal process a Northern Ireland county court judge is likely to have.

We already have a criminal courts system in Northern Ireland, including the Crown courts and others. The amendment, together with new clause 17, would ensure that the criminals covered by the Bill—it is criminals that we are talking about—would come before the ordinary criminal courts. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) questioned the Secretary of State’s explanation of the special tribunal and the whole apparatus that we are discussing. I remind hon. Members of what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading:

“I do not want this process to jam up the existing courts ... I do not think that the citizens of Northern Ireland think that it would be right ... to obstruct the timing and momentum of the normal criminal proceedings that are going through our Crown courts, possibly including cases following the Good Friday agreement. That is why we set up the parallel procedure.”—[Official Report, 23 Nov 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1549.]

Can the Minister tell us what evidence exists that the citizens of Northern Ireland object to criminals coming through the criminal courts? Is it actually the case—only he can answer this—that the judiciary in Northern Ireland, which I hold in high esteem, would not touch this procedure with a bargepole, whether it was 10 ft, 40 ft or whatever length one cares to invent? I just want him to tell us the views of the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary, and say whether it was they who objected, rather than the citizens of Northern Ireland. Like hon. Members representing all constituencies in Northern Ireland—of course, they may be in the wrong Unionist party, or the SDLP—I have spoken to many constituents, victims and others about the legislation, and not one of them has objected to such criminals coming through the normal criminal courts.

I shall therefore press new clause 17 to a vote.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

I hope that today we shall continue as before, under your admirable leadership, Sir Nicholas. I intend to speak in support of amendment No. 108 and new clause 13, and to oppose the stand part motion.

The amendments in the group all relate to an issue that my party regards as fundamental—the status of the hearing. We firmly believe that defendants should be tried in the Crown courts. As drafted, the Bill sets aside due process and the normal rule of law. The people who will avail themselves of the measures are people who have been accused of serious terrorist offences. Why should they not be tried in a criminal court?

The Bill shuts out the courts from considering such cases, whereas we should be demonstrating that society, the Government and the offender all recognise that the offence was wrong, and that due process is being observed. The proposals will make it much more difficult to hold offenders to public account for their actions, and I am concerned that if justice is not seen to be done, the Government will be licensing vigilantes to take matters into their own hands. Unfortunately, there are still elements of society in Northern Ireland who prefer to do just that, rather than trust the police and the courts to deal with offenders. We discussed that when we considered the position of people who have been intimidated into moving out of their homes and who have been exiled from Northern Ireland. Who is to say that there will not be people who feel that justice has not been done, and take the law into their own hands?

We are also concerned that the processes set out in the Bill will undermine the current criminal justice system. I have the utmost respect for the judiciary, both those currently serving on the bench and those who have stepped down. The Secretary of State has said that the special tribunal will consist of a retired judge. I am concerned that giving a person outside the judiciary the ability to try, convict and sentence a person would drive a coach and horses through the valuable criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that retired judges do much valuable work, such as involvement in Government inquiries, but those inquiries do not try or convict a person for criminal offences.

The Bill sets out all kinds of special mechanisms to deal with applicants—appeals commissioners, a special tribunal, a special prosecutor and a special appeals tribunal. I asked the Secretary of State to estimate the likely cost of setting up those additional unwanted mechanisms. He replied that it was not yet possible fully to predict the cost, but stated:

“The costs will be met from within the NIO’s existing resources.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2005; Vol. 440, c.1740W.]

In other words, there will be no additional funding.

We shall certainly press this matter to a Division.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I recognise, as have others, that we spent a long time here on Tuesday under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas. I appreciate what you did to ensure that we did at least leave on Tuesday, not on Wednesday. Today, however, those of us who have travel plans will, I hope, be able to keep to them.

Like others, I oppose clause 8; I shall also speak to the new clauses. The clause would provide for a special tribunal. In this Hain-Adams Bill, Sinn Fein, which opposed the idea of special legislation for years, and opposed special courts in the north and the south, has begotten a special tribunal. No doubt Sinn Fein will be able to say that it is different because it is not actually a court. That is the rub.

Sinn Fein used to say—and we have always said—that people have the right to a trial before a jury. New clause 13 would ensure that, and on that basis we are pleased to back it. It would also ensure that those who are convicted would not be able to excuse or spin that conviction in future on the grounds that it had been given by a special tribunal of dubious legitimacy, without a jury. If people could do that, it would undermine the Government’s false claim that the Bill is about giving victims the satisfaction of at least having a conviction for the crime that hurt or bereaved them. As the Bill stands, the special tribunal does not even have to have a currently serving judge. As other hon. Members have mentioned, a retiree is allowed. That shows how literally unreal the special tribunal will be as a court.

The Government have also told us that the Bill will honour an international agreement. We have been told to think past the fact that it comes from a black pact with Sinn Fein, on behalf of the IRA, and to recognise that it is part of an international agreement with the Irish Government to underpin the peace process. We have been told that we cannot oppose the Bill if we support the peace process, want good things to happen and believe in the Good Friday agreement. The Irish Government are having to say the same thing about the provisions that they are making in the south, but let us remember that in the south of Ireland, a special tribunal such as the one in the Bill would be absolutely and totally unconstitutional.

The rest of us are meant to be intimidated by this binding international agreement and to suspend all our values and judgments in the face of it. What we are being asked to do in support of and to honour that agreement would be unconstitutional, and nobody in the south of Ireland is being asked to do the same. If parliamentarians in the south of Ireland are not being asked to honour the agreement in this way, why, in whatever name people believe in, are we being asked to do so? The legislation is asking us to go along with a contradiction inside a conundrum buried underneath an outrage.

The Irish constitution is clear that only the courts can administer justice. That should be the case here as well. That is something with which anybody should agree who also believes in the rule of law and democracy, even in what I understood passed for British democracy. That should be the position here, and that is why we are backing new clause 13 and why anybody in this room who calls themselves a parliamentary democrat and a believer in justice should back it too.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In case I forget to say so at 10.25, I pay tribute to your chairmanship now, Sir Nicholas, it has been a pleasure to serve under you. At the completion of these proceedings, both you and Mr. Taylor should be proud of your work. If the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has travel plans, may I say that he is welcome to go now?

Clause 8 contains provisions that establish a special tribunal with the exclusive right to try offences certified under this legislation. The clause also introduces schedule 2, which contains the necessary supplementary provisions for the special tribunal. It may help hon. Members if I explain the Government’s rationale behind the special tribunal, and I will then respond to points raised in the debate.

The key feature of the special tribunal is that it attracts to itself all the powers, authorities and jurisdictions of the Crown court, but sitting without a jury. It is to all intents and purposes the Crown court without the jury, and is therefore the equivalent of the Diplock court, of whose operation Members, particularly those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, will be aware.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

New Diplock.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Gentleman is again being very helpful with his heckles. I am aware that the provision is controversial, as was recognised in hon. Members’ contributions.

In speaking to his new clause the hon. Member for Tewkesbury raised the issue of an individual’s attendance at the tribunal. In Committee on Tuesday I gave clear indications that following representations in the Committee, on Second Reading and outside the House, I will return on Report having reflected on the issues raised. I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I will examine his new clause carefully before Report, and I hope that I will be able to reflect on it positively.

I would like to take the opportunity to set out the importance of having a distinct tribunal for the prosecution of certified offences. That may be for reasons with which hon. Members disagree, but it is for reasons that the Secretary of State explained and dealt with on Second Reading. The cases that will appear before the special tribunal are in many ways additional to the existing burden on the courts. I recognise, as I have said, that we cannot as yet estimate precisely the number of cases that will come before the tribunal, but we do have a reasonable idea of the potential number. They are historical cases, even though in many instances their impact will continue.

Courts in Northern Ireland will be busy trying recent crimes, not necessarily related to the Troubles, but to recent crimes as a whole. To impose on the court system, in relatively short order, a wave of cases that are not part of their projected work load would throw up real difficulties, as the Secretary of State said. I anticipate that if the legislation reaches the statute book in its current form, there will be a wave of applications once the certification commissioner and the special tribunal are established; it is in the nature of the scheme that those who are going to return will do so fairly soon after it has been established.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) repeated remarks made by the Secretary of State. One of the more astonishing admissions on Second Reading was that the grounds for not using Crown courts was that they would be clogged up; I think those were the words used. The Minister is willing to reflect on issues, and I would have hoped that the Secretary of State would reflect on the deluge of comments that were made after the revelation that he thought that the courts would be clogged up. I believe that there is cross-party support for using the Crown courts—not any other form of court. We want the process to go through the Crown courts, no matter how much delay might be caused, or how many problems might be created, or how much time it might take.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I was intending to address that point, which was also made by the hon. Member for North Down. If the legislation is enacted in its current form, the Government believe that there may be a wave of cases in 2007 and early 2008. We cannot yet calculate how many cases there might be, but we can work out the rough figure, and we know that that would cause a problem for Her Majesty’s Court Service. The courts would be in the position of having to timetable old cases—20 or 30 years old, perhaps—alongside recent cases in the normal criminal justice system. Questions of priority would arise, and it seems unreasonable to us in government to expect old cases to take precedence over current cases that are being dealt with by HMCS generally.

The consequence could well be either that old cases push back new cases so that they stagnate still further, or that individuals return and are granted certificates by the certification commissioner, but if a prosecution is brought against them, there is a delay. That would mean that for a period the individual would have the certificate, would have returned to Northern Ireland, and would be free from potential further investigation, but their court case would still be some time off. For that reason, it would be better to establish a stand-alone tribunal to deal with such matters.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

My hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government would like the process to be concluded as soon as possible, and reference has been made to the period of two years for winding it up. If the process clogged up the court system and inordinate delays were caused, that could lead to the period being artificially stretched far beyond two years; that would depend on how the courts dealt with the situation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the case for the special tribunal is made on that basis?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I agree entirely. The Government want cases to be dealt with quickly, so that the matter is put behind us quickly—the convictions are given quickly, and the individuals are released on licence quickly. That is the way in which the matter would be best dealt with.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Minister has outlined the Government’s views, and explained their defence of the extraordinary structure of this special tribunal. I would like him to focus on replying to the question that I asked when speaking to new clause 17. What are the views of the judiciary? Did the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland object to taking part in this absurd procedure?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I intend to come to that point shortly, after I have completed my current comments.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

We are dealing with people who are on the run. They might have been on the run for many years. Will they be in a hurry to go through this process? The process needs to be done correctly, rather than in a rush. I know that the Minister wants to get the whole issue dealt with quickly, but that is not necessarily the best way to address it.

I wish to make a second point, if I can test your patience, Sir Nicholas. I asked a few days ago for the number of people we were dealing with. The Minister was unable to give me a number. He was deliberately shy of that. He now seems to have a number in mind. He must do, or he would not think that the courts would be clogged up. What number does he have in mind that would clog up the courts?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I anticipate that this scheme will be undertaken by a significant number of individuals. However, I cannot give the Committee or the House a specific figure because the matter relates to potential investigations and potential activity by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which we cannot establish at present. I have a broad figure in my mind, and 60, 70 and 80 have been mentioned. I do not want to be tied to any figure, but I recognise that great interest could be taken in the scheme by a large number of individuals.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

May I help the Minister?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aching to help me.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have this from no less an authority with no less credibility than the Prime Minister. He assured my colleagues and me in Downing street in October 2005 that this Bill would cover no more than 60 people. That colourshow I take any other assurance or advice from the Government about the Bill, but if we are talking figures, we were told that it would be no more than 60. Does the Minister have a problem stating that to the Committee?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his help. It is encouraging to have his assistance on these matters. I must tell the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) that I expect the figure will be about 60, 70 or 80. [Interruption.] If hon. Members would care to listen, that is what I anticipate—but at some future date more individuals may come forward, because the PSNI establishes that there are cases to answer, and I could find that there are 85 or 90 cases. There might be 45 or 50 cases. We are in that region.

The Chief Constable himself has estimated that he currently has an interest in approximately 70 individuals. That is the ballpark figure. I expect that if people avail themselves of this scheme, it will happen in a wave. That is why I return to the original point that it would be a burden on the existing Court Service. There will be a special tribunal to deal with those matters speedily, which will ensure that current criminal cases are not pushed back to delay their examination still further, and those 50, 60, or 70 individuals are not given a certificate before they have faced the tribunal.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

Perhaps I might be permitted to widen the Minister’s ballpark a little. The Superintendents Association of Northern Ireland in an open letter to David Hanson MP—[Interruption.] Sorry, in a letter to the Minister, the PSANI said:

“It is our view that only a concrete and discreet time limit, for example six months, would be sufficient to encourage those 150 to 200 individuals who may be classed as ‘on the run’”.

That is its estimate, in a letter addressed to the Minister himself.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have seen that letter, because I happen to be the hon. Member for Delyn, to whom the letter was addressed. I am not trying to be evasive, but the estimates will vary. The Chief Constable, who is accountable for the superintendents who work in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, has estimated that the figure is in the region of 70. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has told my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle that it is 60.

There is an element of manoeuvre, depending on who would qualify for the scheme ultimately and what evidence the PSNI can bring forward. Whatever the number, the key point that I am making to the Committee is that those who avail themselves of the scheme are likely to do so within its first 18 months of its operation. That means that about 60, 70 or 80—perhaps slightly more or less—individuals will return to Northern Ireland to face that court system.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In a moment. There is potential for those cases to hit the Court Service. We have established a tribunal that is—in every way, shape or form—a Diplock court to deal with those cases, so that we do not delay justice for individuals in Northern Ireland in normal circumstances.

Mark Hendrick (Labour, Preston)

My hon. Friend is being far too accommodating. He said that he anticipated significant numbers, but that he could not give an exact figure. When he attempted to provide a figure, some hon. Members felt it worthwhile to criticise it. There are various estimates of the number of people who will be affected by the scheme. It is clear that the police do not know and others can only make rough guesses. Why is it unreasonable for my hon. Friend to be as vague as he has been?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

What I am trying to say—my hon. Friend has been of assistance in that—is that there is a range of estimates, but that I do not wish to give a specific figure because I do not as yet know on which cases the police service will have sufficient evidence to ensure that individuals can qualify for the scheme in its entirety. The Chief Constable has provided a rough estimate of 70 people, but there may be more and I do not wish to preclude that by giving a figure that hon. Members will later quote back to me, no doubt saying that I was evasive in Committee in providing a figure that was not proved true in due course.

The scheme is very tightly drawn. Individuals will qualify for it if they meet the criteria, and they will subsequently progress to a special tribunal. I anticipate a potential minimum of about 60 cases, although there may be more. If there are 60, most of which are likely to be murder cases concerning severe terrorist activity, it could take some time to deal with them.

The special tribunal is not intended to distance individuals from the Court Service. The tribunal will be presided over by a retired judge—I will come back to that in a moment—and will provide a service to deal with this matter in the way in which a Crown court operates. It will give a sentence in exactly the same way as a Crown court while not clogging up the Crown court so that trial of cases involving murders that took place a year ago will not be delayed, along with justice. Hon. Members may disagree with that, but I think it is an eminently sensible proposition.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is clear that the Minister is attempting to play down the extent to which this legislation will be used and the number of people who will benefit from it. He believes that the lower end of the range will be a minimum of 60. Does he accept that, if there are 2,100 unsolved cases, the figure could be several thousand, because, presumably, more than one person was involved in each crime?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Part of the reason for not giving a figure—the debate we have had in the last few moments relates to the number who will qualify from the on-the-run aspect of the scheme, which means, as the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Chief Constable have indicated, those who are outside the jurisdiction, but who may return—is that, clearly, the historical inquiries aspect has potential for more convictions at some point. There is potential for more cases to be dealt with regarding individuals who are involved in the security forces.

The discussion we have had in last few moments has been about the on-the-run aspect. I cannot give a figure because I do not yet know how many historical inquiries will lead to people facing charges and going into the scheme. I am not trying to be evasive; I am trying to tell hon. Members that I anticipate a severe work load for the special tribunal. If that work load goes through the existing Crown court system, it will undoubtedly have an effect on the Crown court case load. I have covered that point and I want to move on to other points that have been raised by hon. Members.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Before the Minister moves on, leaving aside the number of cases, he cannot possibly be arguing that if, for example, there were an upsurge of terrorism in Northern Ireland, we would somehow forget about the resultant cases and not bother taking them to court. What is the difference between the courts dealing with an upsurge in terrorism, and the cases that would flow from it, and them dealing with these historical cases?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The scheme is predicated on the Good Friday agreement of 10 April 1998 historical cases. As I have tried to explain, the purpose of the Government policy in Northern Ireland is to ensure that there is no upsurge in terrorist violence. If that occurred, which I would regret, the courts would have to deal with the matter, and, as I said, there would be a range of problems. My point is that we are dealing with historical cases, and the precedent has to be whether they should clog up they system that deals with cases that are before the court or whether we can deal with them in a special tribunal, which, to all intents and purposes, is a Crown court—like the Diplock courts, except that it is presided over by a retired judge. I want to make progress by moving on to that point.

The hon. Members for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and for North Down raised the issue of the retired judge. For similar reasons, asking serving judges to sit on the special tribunal would place an unnecessary burden on judicial resources. Retired Crown court, county court and circuit judges are qualified to hear criminal cases and to pass maximum sentences. There is no reason to question their capacity or capability to try serious cases. What is proposed is a temporary provision in order not to place an additional burden on existing judicial resources and or divert current judges from dealing with current cases. A temporary tribunal should be provided distinctly to deal with this matter.

There is no reason to question the capacity of recently retired judges, who have the necessary experience and recent knowledge of criminal court cases. The tribunal will ensure that there is a distinct operation to deal with these matters as speedily as possible without referring to the court system, but operating in exactly the same way as it.

Sammy Wilsonrose—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I see that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is bursting to get in, but before I give way I want to cover a further point. I was asked the view of the Court Service and individuals on the proposals. I refer the hon. Member for North Down to the back of the Bill, where its the supporters are named. Among them is the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice).

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Is that meant to impress us?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am tempted into responding to the hon. Gentleman, because it is always valuable to have his contributions on the record. The Bill has been agreed by the Government, as the Committee would expect, and the judicial aspects of the scheme have been developed in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Court Service and discussed with the Lord Chancellor’s Department, which supports the measure. I hope the hon. Member for North Down accepts that point.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

With the greatest respect to the Minister, he has given us an account involving the Lord Chancellor’s Department. May I have a direct answer to the question I have asked on two occasions: what was the reaction of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and his colleagues when asked if they would take on board any aspect of this ghastly Bill? Was it a driving force behind the special tribunal? What is the view of the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The Lord Chief Justice has been consulted on the matter, but it is not appropriate for me to give his views to the Committee. However, his Department has confirmed and is supportive of the legislation. That is the best guide to the view on the legislation.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

May I ask the question in another way, which will allow the Minister to answer without indicating the views of the Lord Chief Justice? Was it the Government’s original intention to have a special tribunal in this form? Did they originally intend to use the normal court process, but perhaps have to change that after consultation?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I can only answer that question as honestly as I can, in the sense that since May, during my time in office, this has been the proposal that I, as the Minister, have been developing. I am not aware of what happened on that aspect before my time in office.

Sammy Wilsonrose—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I promised to give way to my hon. Friend, as I will call him on this occasion.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has explained that putting such cases through the existing courts would put pressure on them because there would not be sufficient judicial resources. If that were the case, what would be the difficulty in simply creating more judges? That happens quite frequently. What would be the difficulty in doing that, rather than bringing back retired judges?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the former right hon. Member for Chesterfield, Tony Benn, who wanted to create 1,000 peers to deal with a particular matter. It is certainly possible to create more judges—we could undoubtedly do that—but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the provision is intended to be temporary. If I created a lot of new judges, ultimately I would have to create a redundancy scheme for judges, which would not be an appropriate way to take the issue forward. We are trying to deal with temporary matters in a temporary way. The special tribunal will be distinct from the Court Service.

Mr. Robinsonrose—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am always happy to take interventions, but before the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) intervenes again, I should say that I have been advised on the point that he raised some moments ago. I said that during my time in office the proposal has been for a special tribunal, although I was not aware of the situation before my time in office. I am advised that the May 2003 proposals referred to a special judicial tribunal, so the Government have not made any changes to the proposals in the light of any comments. This has always been the proposal. I hope that that clears the point up for the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I was not seeking to intervene on that matter, although it is worth pointing out that the May 2003 proposal arose from discussions in 2001. There was a consultation between 2001 and 2003, when it was published. That is why I asked the question.

Returning to the issue of judges, I am sure that the Government have done some study on it. Is it not the case that the work load of judges has significantly reduced during the past few years? Therefore, is there not some slack within the system that would allow those additional cases to be taken for a temporary period?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have put openly and honestly to the Committee my views on why the special tribunal, rather than the Court Service, will be operating. I have nothing to add to that. I have explained, as rationally as I can, why we have chosen the special tribunal route. The tribunal will be, to all intents and purposes, the Court Service. It will be a Diplock court in every way, shape or form. It will have the same powers as the Court Service, the same power of criminal conviction and the same issues in respect of its operation.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

On a point of clarification, it is proposed that a retired judge should chair the special tribunal. Many of our judges are very wise and very experienced. Does the Minister have an idea of an upper age limit for the chairman of the special tribunal, so that we get a fit and active judge for the proceedings? [Laughter.]

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It may not seem so, but the Government intend to try to secure some prosecutions. We want the judge, whoever he or she may be, to be of sufficient mental capacity to cope with complex cases and to ensure that court cases are concluded. I cannot give a definitive upper age limit, because certain people are gaga long before they reach retirement age.

There is no reason to set an upper age limit, but I expect that whoever presides over the special tribunal will be competent and lucid in every way and will have the qualities, skills and capacity that we would expect of a Crown court judge. That person will be a retired Crown court or county court judge who will be able fully to undertake their duties.

I would like to answer a final point, then we will have covered these matters with elegant sufficiency. The hon. Member for Foyle mentioned the differences between the scheme in the Republic of Ireland and the one that this Government are introducing. It is clear that, although the principles of the 2003 proposals were the same, the two Administrations have dealt with the issue entirely differently. The Republic is clearly going down a route that will involve presidential pardons for individuals and no court appearance at all. We have an honest disagreement with the Republic of Ireland on that issue.

The Government have felt, from the commencement and now, that there should be, for the reasons that hon. Members have mentioned—

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Minister give way?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

In a moment. For the reasons that have been mentioned, and as I indicated to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, there will be an opportunity for individuals, potentially, to appear in court, have a criminal conviction and be released on licence. That is a different scheme from that in the Republic, where presidential pardons are the considered route of the Republic’s Government. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that there are differences.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I sense that this will be the final intervention. I call Mark Durkan.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the Minister accept that the south of Ireland is not going for special tribunals because the Irish constitution is clear? There is no way that the Irish Parliament can be asked to subscribe to the notion that justice can be administered by anything other than a court constituted as a court? If that is where the Irish Government and the Irish Parliament stand in relation to the international agreement, why is that not good enough for here as well?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I say to the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that I will receive the support of Members on the other side of the Committee—that the Irish Government are a different Government from the British Government. What they do and how they administer the scheme and its objectives are entirely matters for the Irish Government. We happen to be the British Government. We have chosen to put individuals through the tribunal and through court.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that the agreement has been to ensure that we tackle the question of outstanding cases prior to 10 April 1998. The Irish Government have chosen to do this in their way, with a presidential pardon. I think that I would face severe criticism if I came to the House with such a proposal for individuals under the British Government’s scheme. We have chosen a different route.

Ulster Unionist and Democratic Unionist Members recognise, I am sure, that the two Governments are entirely different. We have chosen a different route to agree these matters. That’s the way it is. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I have to advise the members of the Committee who tabled the new clauses that we have just debated—13, 17 and 18—that they will now not be subject to Divisions, as the Committee has agreed to clause 8, with which the new clauses are inconsistent. There could be opportunities at a later stage to reconsider those matters.

Schedule 2 - Special Tribunal

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in schedule 2, page 16, line 28, leave out “has held” and insert “holds”.

Many issues that relate to the amendment were covered in the previous debate. I realise that we are making slow progress this morning, so I shall be brief. The amendment deals with the appointment of retired judges to the special tribunal. The provision requires the special tribunal to

“consist of a person who has held high judicial office in Northern Ireland”

or in England and Wales, or a former High Court or county court judge in Northern Ireland.

The explanatory notes suggest that the person involved should be retired, but it could be argued that a current judge of such standing would fit the description of having held high office. For example, Sir Brian Kerr has held high judicial office since 1994. Will the Minister clarify whether the definition of “has held” high judicial office is exclusively in respect of retired judges? He suggested that in an earlier debate.

We believe that such matters are extremely important. The Minister said that many cases will deal with the charge of murder. Is it appropriate and sufficient to leave such matters to a retired judge? After all, the law evolves all the time. Can we be certain that a retired judge will have followed all the changes in the law and that he will be up with all the precedents that are relevant to the case he is considering?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, but will he seek clarification through the Minister of whether, in the intervening two years between the Bill reaching the statute book and applications for certification and tribunals making progress, the necessary training, instruction and bringing up to date of recently retired judges can be achieved? I feel that they can, but the processes need to be in place to ensure success.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Unfortunately, the Bill does not make it clear that the tribunal will be formed immediately after its passage through Parliament. Will the Minister clarify that? If it is not formed then, when will the retired judges be appointed? In any event, it does not make for sound judgments to have retired judges sitting on special tribunals dealing with such issues.

Given that the Minister made it clear that these cases will not be dealt with in the Crown court, they should at least be heard by sitting judges. It further devalues the entire process that we shall have an entirely special arrangement.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of us who support him on the amendment believe that he has taken the argument a little too far? He is in danger of deluding himself and the rest of us into thinking that we are talking about a serious court and a judge who needs to be up to speed with recent cases and case law. The construct of the legislation will ensure that the special tribunal is immune from any consideration of reality, law and justice. A judge from “The X Factor” or “Strictly Come Dancing” would be as relevant and purposeful as a judge from the courts.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If the hon. Gentleman is as adept and skilful on his feet as he is with his words, perhaps we could enter him for “Strictly Come Dancing”. He would have my full support.

The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. Perhaps we ought to be questioning not the mental capacity of the judges to deal with these issues, but their physical capacity to lift their arm and apply their rubber stamp to whatever the deemed pronouncements are. When the rest of the Bill is considered—the fact that the police will not be able to arrest, detain or question on-the-runs, or take samples, fingerprints and so on from them—the prospect of securing convictions is pretty minimal.

The Minister has said that the scope of the tribunal goes much beyond the question of OTRs; it includes addressing the issue of cold case review and cases that will emerge from that, which might involve serious crimes, including murder. There is an issue here, which he needs to address. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 42, which would require that the judge who sat on a special tribunal held high judicial office. We believe that current judges should be involved, and there is no reason why the Government could not appoint additional judges.

I do not accept the Minister’s argument that the arrangement is temporary. If he had accepted amendments discussed at earlier sittings, when we sought to limit the lifespan of the tribunal to six or 12months, I might have accepted his argument. Currently, the reality is that the process is open-ended. If a 75-year-old judge were appointed to sit on one of the tribunals—we are talking about things that might happen in five or 10 years—it would beggar belief.

It is not a sufficient defence to argue that the inclusion of the cases in the normal judicial system would clog up the courts and that judges would not be able to cope with the case load. There is no doubt that the number of cases under the anti-terrorism legislation in Northern Ireland and under the Diplock court system has reduced significantly in recent years. If there were to be an upsurge in violence—the Minister says that is unlikely; maybe so—how could the judicial system cope?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Does my hon. Friend accept that these “trials” will be significantly shorter than trials of any other kind? In most cases, we will find that the accused will not be present, so there will be no cross-examination of the star witness.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We await the Minister’s response on Report in terms of a possible amendment to the Bill, although I understand that there might be some doubt about that.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister has indicated—I could not read his lips that well, although I assume that this is what he meant—that that is a matter that the Government are considering. However, he was quoted this morning on “Good Morning Ulster” on the BBC as saying that while they are reflecting on opposition to the provision, they are not committed to changing the legislation. I am sure my hon. Friend will give way if the Minister wants to clarify the position.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Indeed. That is why I suggest that there might be a question mark over the commitment that the Minister gave to the Committee at a previous sitting.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There is no question mark over the commitment that I gave to the Committee. I said that I will reflect on those matters. The hon. Member for Belfast, East withdrew his amendment on the basis of that assurance. I assure him that I will reflect on those matters when we reach consideration on Report.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We await the Minister’s response on Report with interest.

We have summarised well the points in support of the amendment. I urge the Minister seriously to consider the impact of the farcical nature of the entire special tribunal scenario, which is to be presided over by retired judges. The message that that sends out to the victims of terrorism is, effectively, “You are second class.” Cases involving road traffic accidents or organised crime would go through the normal judicial system.

To pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Foyle from a sedentary position, it is amazing that the republican movement, in the form of Sinn Fein-IRA, is entering into an agreement to establish what is effectively Diplock mark 2, when it has campaigned for years against Diplock mark 1. It is just another example of the double standards of Sinn Fein-IRA that not only will they deny justice to victims, but they are now signing up to a system of justice that they claim to have opposed for decades. I urge hon. Members of all parties to support the amendment.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Committee that there are less than three and a half hours to deal with the remaining clauses and schedules. I am confident that succinct contributions from all would be appreciated by the Committee.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Adopting that ethos, I shall be succinct. I ask the Minister for clarification. We have heard about the differences, or similarities, between the special tribunal and a court of law, but will he clarify the rules regarding double jeopardy in the situation that we are discussing, given that the preceding trial, as such, will not be complete, because—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. Not on this amendment. That question, I am afraid, is not something that we can deliberate on at this time.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I, too, shall be brief. I support the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) made an intervention that the Committee found somewhat humorous, but he made a serious point, which was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley. The fact that the Committee found it humorous shows what a ridiculous Bill this is. It is full of inconsistencies and things that will be most offensive to many people in Northern Ireland. The fact that there will not even be a serving judge in charge of the process is typical of the rest of the Bill, and that is very unfortunate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley did not go quite as far as I would have done. I should just say that I have every respect for people who are retired. To draw an analogy, before I came to this House, I used to do quite a lot of charity fundraising, professionally, and it is typical for there to be a chairman of a fundraising appeal. The advice was always that if there was to be a chairman, it should be someone who was still working and had not retired, simply because if they had retired, they would have lost their contacts, which are very useful for fundraising organisations. In the same way, a retired judge will not be up to speed with legal practices.

In my youth, I studied law through a correspondence course, but I was advised not to do it by correspondence, simply because in law, things change so quickly. Having a retired judge in charge of the process is a further insult to the people of Northern Ireland.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a marked difference between a judge who retired six or 12 months ago and one who retired 20 years ago, in terms of how up to speed they are? Also, there is the issue, to which I referred earlier, of training and further instruction in the period leading up to the establishment of the special tribunals.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether there is a difference between someone who retired 20 years ago, and someone who retired six months ago, yes, there is. Of course there is a difference, but I still think it is unacceptable to use a judge who retired six months ago.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There is nothing in the Bill that states that the judge will be a recently retired judge. That is left open; it could be somebody who retired 20 years ago. There is also nothing in the legislation that says that they have to be a Northern Ireland judge. If they are not a Northern Ireland judge—and I think that most of those will have enough sense not to wish to take up such a post—we will be bringing in a judge from a different legal jurisdiction.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

My hon. Friend makes two very good points. I would go further and say that as far as I can see, there is nothing in the legislation about the retraining aspect either. I would like to say quite a bit more on this issue, but given your call for brevity, Sir Nicholas, I will conclude my remarks now. I very much support the proposal introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I am about to call the Minister, but before I do so, I say to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre that he raised an important matter, which he sought to get an answer to, but unfortunately it was not relevant to the amendment under discussion, which deals with the appointment of a retired judge.

Mr. Wallacerose—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I do not think that there should be any point of order. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to come back on this matter, I will use a bit of discretion and flexibility and say that he can do so, because this has been a very good-humoured Committee.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. The Minister tells us that it is important to have a special tribunal that is set aside from, but operates similarly to, the court system, and is chaired by a retired judge rather than a serving judge. I was trying to establish the differences involved in that. If we were to have a retired judge, what status would that give the tribunal with regard to dealing with the quality of evidence and the judicial process for double jeopardy? If the Minister can answer that it would make no difference—that if proceedings were suspended, individuals could be subject to trial again—I might be inclined not to support the amendment.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The Minister has heard that point, and I call on him to reply to the debate.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

First, let me respond to the rather flippant comments of the hon. Member for Foyle about whether a High Court judge might as well be a judge from “The X Factor”. Sharon Osbourne has many qualities, as does Louis Walsh, but it is not my recollection that either of them has held high office as a county court judge or a circuit judge in England and Wales. Simon Cowell is known for wearing tight shirts, but I am not sure that he has ever worn a wig and a red coat. However, if any of those three individuals has held high judicial office as a county court judge or a circuit judge in England and Wales, they are free to apply for the position in due course.

A number of the issues that have been raised were covered in the previous debate. I have explained to the Committee how pressures on the judicial system have led us to examine the possibility of a retired court judge being appointed to those posts. County court judges and circuit judges are qualified to hear criminal cases, and to pass sentence up to a maximum life sentence. There is no reason to question the capability of those who have the qualifications listed in paragraph 2(1) of schedule 2. That states that we would seek to have someone who has held high judicial office in the county court or as a circuit judge in England and Wales.

I hope that it will be helpful to Members if I point out that the way in which we have phrased paragraph 2 does not preclude a serving judge from serving. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley asked about that. It is entirely possible for a serving judge to serve on the special tribunal. We intend to seek retired judges for that role, for the reasons that I have mentioned; pressures on the existing judicial system mean that we intend to create the possibility of establishing a parallel special tribunal, because the measures that it will deal with will be temporary. However, that does not preclude serving judges from participating. The hon. Gentleman should read the schedule carefully:

“The Special Tribunal is to consist of a person who has held high judicial office”.

That could mean somebody who is currently serving—someone who still holds high office. It is simply our intention, for the reasons I have mentioned, to ensure that retired judges can deal with this matter.

Questions have been raised about whether, if we chose to appoint a retired judge, that person would be capable of dealing with this matter—whether he or she would be up to speed on current legislation, and have the skills required to deal with complex cases and renewed legislation. The proposed individual who will preside over the special tribunal will, as in any Crown court, have staffing, advice and support on legislative matters. They will have access to all relevant developments and papers as part of normal consideration. I do not think that simply because someone is retired they are not up to speed with the legislation. That support will be provided, and will ensure that that person can deal with matters.

Questions have been raised about the establishment of the tribunal, including when it will be established. I have said previously that should the Bill complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament and receive Royal Assent, that in itself will take us a considerable time in this Session to achieve. Once it is achieved, considerable time will be needed to establish the procedure for the certification commissioner and the special tribunal. I have said that the scheme is unlikely to become operational until early to mid-2007 at the earliest, for the reasons that I have outlined, which relate to parliamentary procedure and the basics of establishing the scheme. Without giving a definitive date for the tribunal, I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand that that is our intention. It was clearly expressed before the debate, and has remained our intention in the course of the debate.

I do not want to repeat myself, and I think that I have put on the record in previous debates the reasons why we need schedule 2 in place. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Lagan Valley at least on the reasons for that, even if I cannot assist him currently. I am looking for my note on double jeopardy, to which I want to refer. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned double jeopardy, and it was also raised with me in writing by the hon. Member for North Down following Second Reading. I have told her in writing—I hope that she does not mind my sharing the nature of the correspondence with the Committee—that her point is extremely valid and we have to reflect on it.

We are taking legal advice to establish that very point, but I am confident that the position that we have set out to date is valid. But if when we have examined the matter it turns out not to be valid, I have already undertaken to write to the hon. Lady and introduce suitable amendments to ensure that what I have described is the case. On either aspect, the question of double jeopardy will be resolved by the time of consideration on Report. I have already said that to the hon. Lady. We are examining whether any further technical drafting is required to ensure that the Bill dovetails with provisions in other legislation. That is the point that I have mentioned to the hon. Lady, and I hope that it will satisfy her and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Minister did indeed kindly write to me after Second Reading, when I particularly raised this point with the Secretary of State. I must say, however, that his letter was as clear as mud, and he has responded likewise to the Committee, including the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, who raised the issue on a point of order. Could the Minister confirm that any decision taken by the special tribunal will not rule out the possibility that if the special tribunal acquits an individual—does not find them guilty—and there is new and compelling evidence after that, that individual—that criminal, that murderer—will be retried before the proper courts in Northern Ireland? That is the confirmation and clarification that I seek.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As in all matters, as far as is practicable, the rules that apply in a special tribunal will be the same as those that apply in a normal Crown court.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

That leads on to the point that the quality of evidence demanded by a Crown court should also be demanded by a special tribunal. If, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East said, one of the star witnesses is not present, how can the quality of evidence demanded in a special tribunal be the same as that demanded in a Crown court?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I do not wish to repeat myself, but I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have recognised that I am reflecting for Report on the question of the star witness not being present. I do not want to go further than that today, but the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre will be aware, following our earlier discussions and the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, that I am reflecting on those matters for Report.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the Minister concede that the quality of evidence demanded by a special tribunal is not going to be the same as the quality of evidence required in a court of law?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

It is our intention that the same rules should apply. I am reflecting on whether the current proposals meet that intention, and I believe that they do. Following the intervention of the hon. Member for North Down on Second Reading, my team and I are reflecting to ensure that the same rules apply on double jeopardy as on evidence in court. It is our intention that that they will. Following the hon. Lady’s raising that matter on Second Reading, I have undertaken to examine the matter, and we are in the process of doing so. The helpful parliamentary nature of the process means that if our examination should prove that the same rules do not apply, we will be able to table technical amendments to ensure that they do. I hope that that satisfies both the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman. I rest my case before the Committee today, commend the schedule to hon. Members, and ask them to reject the amendments.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I remain unconvinced by his arguments about the use of retired judges to preside over the special tribunals. We therefore wish to press the matter to a vote.

Clause 9 - Entitlement to licence

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No. 29, in clause 9, page 6, line 20, after ‘possible’, insert—

‘, after having served either five years, or one third, of his sentence (whichever is the less),’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 131, in clause 9, page 6, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2A)A person subject to a sentence of life imprisonment is not eligible for a licence under this section until he has served at least two years of his sentence.

(2B)A person sentenced to a period of imprisonment of five years or more is not eligible for a licence under this section until he has served at least one year of his sentence.’.

No. 30, in clause 9, page 6, line 28, leave out subsection (4).

No. 132, in clause 9, page 6, line 28, at end insert

‘other than a sentence of life imprisonment or one of five years or more.’.

No. 133, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (5).

No. 134, in clause 9, page 6, line 41, leave out subsection (7).

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Those who are convicted through the special tribunal—I do not even like the term “convicted”—may be eligible for a licence, and the only result is that they will be given a licence to walk out of the door. Indeed, they may not even be there to walk out of the door; they will simply have the licence to ensure that they never serve a prison sentence. On Second Reading, even some Government Members suggested that a prison sentence should be served, even for a short time.

Almost all the cases in question will be murder cases. The Minister said that this morning. It is immoral that people will be able to escape serving any time in prison, even though in some cases they are guilty of multiple murder. Not only is the provision totally immoral, it is inconsistent with the terms of the Belfast agreement. We did not agree with the early release scheme in the Belfast agreement, but at least under that, people who had committed crimes had to serve, and did serve, a portion of their sentence.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

How many individuals outside the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland does the hon. Gentleman think would return there if they were facing a prison sentence?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has also pointed out that the legislation is not only about on-the-runs but about the cold cases review. There are 2,100 unsolved murders.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Did my hon. Friend take, as I did, from what the Minister has just said that it is somehow to the Government’s credit that they are bringing murderers back to Northern Ireland?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Nothing would surprise me about this Bill. Moral judgments have been stood on their head in this Committee. It is inconsistent, even with the Belfast agreement, that murderers who are on the run and those who may appear before the special tribunal as a result of the cold cases review will never serve a day in prison.

The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister have all claimed that the Bill deals with an anomaly. All the people that the Belfast agreement covered—those who had committed crimes before 1998—were released from prison. Therefore it would be an anomaly if those who sought to return to Northern Ireland or those who would be taken to court because evidence of a crime had been uncovered were not subject to the same provisions as were made under the Belfast agreement.

The Bill, in fact, creates a further anomaly. Those who were found guilty and served sentences before 1998 spent some time in prison. Those who will benefit from this Bill will spend no time in prison.

Jeremy Hunt (Conservative, South West Surrey)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is yet a further anomaly? The main plank of the Minister’s case has been that terrorists will be charged, convicted and sentenced. In fact, the Police Service of Northern Ireland will have no motivation to waste public money on securing convictions, because it knows that as soon as people are convicted they will be released on licence.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Chief Constable and the Deputy Chief Constable of the PSNI have already conveyed to the Northern Ireland Policing Board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. They have indicated that, although the professionalism of the officers who are investigating the cold cases cannot be questioned, there is a morale problem. How hard do officers pursue a case that they know will never lead to someone serving even one day in prison? This is not just a tidying-up exercise. The Bill as it stands will create yet another anomaly.

Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill - Standing Committee B

Clause 9 - Entitlement to licence

1.7 pm

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 131, in clause 9, page 6, line 24, at end insert—

‘(2A)A person subject to a sentence of life imprisonment is not eligible for a licence under this section until he has served at least two years of his sentence.

(2B)A person sentenced to a period of imprisonment of five years or more is not eligible for a licence under this section until he has served at least one year of his sentence.’.

No. 30, in clause 9, page 6, line 28, leave out subsection (4).

No. 132, in clause 9, page 6, line 28, at end insert

‘other than a sentence of life imprisonment or one of five years or more.’.

No. 133, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (5).

No. 134, in clause 9, page 6, line 41, leave out subsection (7).

The recording equipment is now back in working order. I pass on the apologies of Hansard for any inconvenience caused to the Committee.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

At the end of this morning’s sitting I was making the point that the Bill creates a further anomaly: people who were convicted before the Belfast agreement will have served some time—perhaps a substantial part of their sentence—in prison, whereas those who have been on the run or who have come before the tribunal as a result of ongoing police investigations will serve no time. In future those who did not benefit from this scheme might claim that they were treated differently and unjustly, and that might need to be dealt with—perhaps, going by our experience of republicans and others, in the form of compensation. The amendment would remove that anomaly and ensure that those who are guilty of murder or multiple murders served at least some time in prison. That might be of little comfort to those who would like proper justice to be meted out to such people, but it would at least ensure that they pay in some way for the crimes that they committed.

I am sure that some hon. Members will point out that the sentences that we have suggested—

“five years, or one third, of his sentence”—

are tougher than they would have been under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, but they are designed to reflect the fact that many who will benefit from the scheme have compounded their offence by having sought to avoid the courts and prison.

The amendment is sensible. It would remove the anomaly created by the Bill and its contradiction and inconsistency with previous treatment of those found guilty of terrorist offences. It would also give some comfort to victims by saying that at least those guilty of the crimes will serve time in prison.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Taylor. Our amendments Nos. 131, 132, 133 and 134 are along the same lines as amendment No. 29.

The people of Northern Ireland are insulted by the Bill and although the Minister says that he may correct the provision, people who have committed the most terrible crimes will not have to appear in front of a court. There will not be a court, but even if there were and people appeared in front of it, they would not have to serve a single day in prison for the crimes that they had committed. That is a terrible insult to the survivors and people whose relatives and loved ones have been murdered. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) says, the Bill is inconsistent with the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, under which there was a minimum requirement. It was not long considering the seriousness of some of the crimes, but it was a requirement of sorts.

The Secretary of State’s explanation on Second Reading was that the Government want to get people through the system, as if that will correct everything. It may make it legally tidy. As I said on Second Reading, if the Prime Minister is considering retiring before the next election, it puts everything neatly together for him—in a box, all done with. However, it is not all done with for the survivors and those who must live with the consequences. It is not done with for the people who suffered the pain. We should be thinking about them.

I am sorry to say that none of us in Committee has been able to extract from the Minister or the Secretary of State the reason for the Bill. We have asked about the consequences if it were not introduced. We were told that the IRA is disarming, or even that it has disarmed and stood down its units, but to the question, “What will be the consequences if we don’t introduce the legislation?”, there has been no answer. We have asked who the legislation is for. Surely the victims and the relatives of the victims are those who matter, yet they do not want the legislation, so what is it for?

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked why it was necessary for these people to come back. Will a great success have been achieved if people come back to Northern Ireland from abroad or beyond the jurisdiction, obtain a certificate and get a licence? Will we really have achieved that much? Why go through all the pain? What will be achieved?

The Secretary of State also said on Second Reading that there is a sort of acceptance that there would be no punishment. He said that people are not being punished now because they are on the run. If we follow that argument through to its logical conclusion, we could say here in Great Britain that if a murder is committed and the police know who committed the murder but have not caught that person, after a while we can say, “Okay, we have not caught that person and brought him to justice, so let us write the crime off completely.” That is the logic conclusion of the Bill.

We tabled amendments similar to that tabled by the hon. Member for East Antrim. We are short of time in Committee, but the fact that I have made a brief speech should not be taken to mean that I and the other Conservative members of the Committee—when they turn up—are not worried about this aspect of the Bill. We are most concerned. We are offended by it. During my eight years in the House, there have been times when legislation passed in connection in Northern Ireland has almost made me ashamed of my profession, and today is one such day.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I welcome you back to the Chair for the Committee’s final sitting, Mr. Taylor.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Antrim would require a convicted certificate holder to serve up to five years of his sentence before becoming eligible for release on licence. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) would require a person who is sentenced to life to serve at least two years and a person who is sentenced to five or more years to serve at least one year. I ask my hon. Friends to reject the amendments, and I shall explain why.

I shall deal with the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Antrim first, and I hope that the Committee will reflect on a point that I made to him this morning. We need to address position of people who are outside the jurisdiction, which was an anomaly left over from the Good Friday agreement. Hon. Members may not accept that, but that is the Government’s position.

I cannot believe that individuals outside the jurisdiction will return to Northern Ireland if, at the end of the special tribunal, they face a potential prison sentence for the crimes that they committed. I understand that that may cause the hon. Gentleman some difficulty, in terms of the conditions that individuals will face when they return, but the purpose of the scheme is to tie up that anomaly and to ensure that individuals come back and face trial in the special tribunal. During that court case, victims and their families can find out what happened and, ultimately, an individual can be convicted for his crime and be released on licence. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would mean that those outside the jurisdiction would not return, which would make the process meaningless.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The Minister is basically reiterating the position. He is not telling us why it is so important that these people come back. He mentioned the victims, but the victims do not want this legislation. I know that he has promised to review the non-appearance part of the Bill, but the whole Bill was put together with non-appearance in mind. It could not have been in the Government’s mind that the victims would know who committed the crime when the Bill was drawn up.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am trying your patience, Mr. Taylor, but let me go back a stage, briefly. Under the Bill as originally published, individuals did not have to appear before the special tribunal. I have agreed to review that matter and to reflect on it, but even if we maintained the original position in which individuals would not attend court—and I am not suggesting that we do that—the individuals would still be known. A named individual would face trial in a special tribunal, he would receive a conviction if found guilty, and he would ultimately be released on licence.

The purpose of the scheme is to ensure that the victim knows that a named individual had been convicted of a crime that involved their loved ones. The named individual would have a criminal record and would serve a sentence released on licence. The fact that I am reflecting on the question of appearance in court may change that aspect of the matter, but it does not change the argument that I put to the hon. Member for East Antrim, which is that if a prison sentence of five years or more awaits those who are outside the jurisdiction, they will not return, so there will be no criminal conviction, no individual with a criminal record, and no individual appearing in court for that crime. I accept that the hon. Gentleman wants justice, but I respectfully tell him that no justice will be served by non-appearance in court.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister accept that if the perpetrators of crimes decide to remain outside the jurisdiction—they are the ones who want to get back in—that, to victims, would be far preferable to seeing them waltz back in and get a licence without having to appear before a tribunal?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If we do otherwise, the individuals who are outside the jurisdiction would not have a conviction—they would not be convicted of crimes for which they would have to face trial if they were brought back to the jurisdiction. I accept that they will not face a prison sentence because they will be released on licence, but the hon. Gentleman has to make a judgment. Does he wish to put in place with the amendment a minimum five-year sentence, which nobody will have to serve because no one will return to face the tribunal, or does he want individuals to return, face the tribunal, be sentenced and given a conviction on licence? That is the choice in his amendment.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With respect, the Minister is beginning to sound ridiculous. He is attempting to tell the Committee that although we are dealing with the very people who have bent the Government’s arm up their back to produce the Bill, because they hate being fugitives so much and hate not being allowed back into Northern Ireland, he is prepared to go through the ridiculous process of introducing legislation allowing them to get a get-out-of-jail-free card. They want to get back; they are the ones who are pursuing the matter and who do not like the situation. The victims do not want it.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the agreement published in May 2003, which indicated the nature of the scheme.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

An agreement with the terrorists, not the victims.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The point is that the hon. Gentleman and the victims will not have an individual in court, being convicted and being released on licence, because people will not return if they face a five-year prison sentence. That is a simple fact.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; he has been extremely generous throughout the entire Committee. He keeps saying, “The victims will not have,” but the victims do not want the Bill. Will he deal with that?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I accept that the victims I have spoken to are sceptical about many aspects of the Bill, but I say openly and honestly to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that they ultimately want to see a conviction for the offence committed against their loved ones. I might be wrong, but in my judgment the proposal made by the Member for East Antrim will mean that, however much individuals want to return to Northern Ireland, they will not return to face a tribunal to be convicted and sentenced to five year years in jail. [Interruption.] They may return to the jurisdiction if they face the tribunal as planned under the scheme that we propose, to receive a conviction on licence and to be able to work in society.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

My hon. Friend may have just heard hon. Members saying, “So what?” from a sedentary position. Does he agree with me that the divisions that we have seen on the Bill and on this amendment are very much about saying “So what?”? We believe that the Bill will push the process further forward, which is necessary. The answer to, “So what?” is “So that the process is pushed forward and delivers some form of justice, albeit diluted, and a record of criminal intent and terrorist activity.”

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have said all along that the purpose of the Bill, distasteful and unpleasant though it is, and let no one in the Committee accept that it is not so, is to ensure that we—

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Appease the IRA.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Mr. Taylor, It is difficult to continue to speak to the Committee when there are a lot of sedentary interventions. As you have seen, I am happy to take interventions. If the hon. Member for Belfast, East wants to put his comments on the record, let him do so.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr. Taylor, I am delighted to see you in the Chair this afternoon.

The Minister has tried to persuade the Committee to reject the amendment moved by the Member for East Antrim, on the basis that when the on-the-runs return they will, to paraphrase the Minister, receive a sentence and will be convicted. With the greatest respect to the Minister, he cannot persuade the Committee that the special tribunal—one person, retired or otherwise—will convict anyone, particularly since clause 7 means that there is a stop factor when the certificate of eligibility is issued and no further police investigation may continue.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. That is a long intervention. Let me also say that I deplore the scale of sedentary interventions. Will hon. Members please make an appropriate request to intervene to the Minister?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I say to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that I cannot guarantee that anybody will be convicted. However, the individuals who are likely to return are likely to face conviction and the mechanism is there if they are convicted of the crime. I cannot prejudge a court case. However, the fact that there will be a considerable amount of evidence in the hands of the police against the person who applies for a certificate and that person would have been arrested had they not been outside it means that the police will have a good opportunity to take forward a number of successful cases. I hope that I have covered the points raised by the amendment.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Is the Minister saying that victims would prefer the perpetrators of a crime to be able to walk up and down their street after coming back and getting a licence to having them outside the jurisdiction as fugitives on the run? That is the choice offered by the Bill. I believe that victims would rather the fugitives were outside the jurisdiction than walking up and down their streets.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I would never presume to speak on behalf of the victims of crimes in Northern Ireland. I simply make a judgment on whether there should be a potential conviction for a crime to help to resolve some of the issues that we have faced in the past. Under the scheme, the potential for conviction means that an individual will return and face a trial, and if they are found guilty, they will be convicted. It should be self-evident—distasteful though it may be—that if people face a five-year sentence on return, they will not return, and if they do not return, there will never be a conviction, nor will the person in question be held on licence for that crime.

There is an honest disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and me, but I am trying, on behalf of the Government, to resolve some of the anomalies outstanding from the Good Friday agreement. At the same time, I hope to offer some comfort to relatives if, at the end of the day, an individual has been convicted of the murder of their loved ones.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government have now suspended or ended all their extradition treaties with all the foreign countries in which such fugitives may be residing? It seems that we are not able to bring them back except through this legislation.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

My understanding is that, if extradition treaties exist, we are exercising that power when that is possible. We have been trying to do that for years. We are where we are.

Questions were also raised about what would happen to the subjects of current inquiries by the historic inquiries team. In addressing the status of those who are currently outside the jurisdiction, the Government are committed to granting licences without any time being served in prison—difficult though that may be. Given that we have made arrangements for returning on-the-runs, it is only reasonable that the same conditions should be available to those who come after them. Again, that relates to offences committed before 10 April 1998 and the Good Friday agreement.

Finally, I confirm to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) what I have just said to him. Nothing in the scheme detracts from our international obligations on extradition.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has emphasised the need to bring people back to Northern Ireland to face justice. The justice that they will face is, of course, not the justice that the victims ever wanted. It seems that the only defence for imposing no prison sentence on such people is that it is the only way to get them back into Northern Ireland. They will go through a charade, get a licence and walk free. I believe that the victims would much prefer those people to stay on the run and remain fugitives. After all, the Bill was designed and requested to allow people who are outside the jurisdiction to come back to Northern Ireland free from prosecution. That was the driving force. The Bill is a reward to those who cannot return to Northern Ireland because of the crimes they have committed or because they have escaped from prison and know that they would face a prison sentence if they came back. Given that they sought to avoid convictions for the crimes that they committed, it is only right that they should receive some degree of punishment.

It is important to note the inconsistency. The Minister has not mentioned the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people who might be covered by the cold case review, and who will not have to be brought back into the jurisdiction because they are already in the jurisdiction. If their cases were to come before the tribunal, why should they not serve a sentence on the grounds of consistency, given that some of their colleagues serve prison sentences even under the Belfast agreement?

This is an important amendment. The Minister cannot make a defence for opposing it, other than to state that the terrorists have demanded that they should not serve a day in prison. In order to give some recognition to victims, we in this Committee and in this House should not be prepared to accede to that demand.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 9, page 6, line 24, leave out ‘non-intimate’.

We have reached the stage where we must impose upon ourselves some serious time strictures, so I will attempt to deal with the amendment in one minute, and I am sure that the Minister’s response will be equally brief.

This is a probing amendment. It would remove the word “non-intimate” from clause 9(2), which states that the Secretary of State is entitled to require those who are accused, and are benefiting from having been granted a licence, to provide fingerprints, to be in attendance themselves, and to provide “non-intimate samples.” Does that mean that there is a prohibition on the police being given the DNA of the individual? According to the explanatory notes, such samples will be supplied “for identification purposes”, although that is not included in the Bill. Does “for identification purposes” mean that the authorities can take such samples only to make sure that they have the person who is named on the original certificate, or can they take them to identify whether they have been involved in other crimes—or, indeed, in case they become involved in further crimes? No restriction should be applied in respect of samples.

As I have said, this is a probing amendment; I hope that that is not an unfortunate phrase to use, as we are talking about non-intimate samples. Whatever samples are required by the police should be available, not only because it will allow them to determine whether there are other charges that the individual should face historically, but because in the event of future actions the samples—fingerprints and so on—will be available to them, so that they can ensure that the person does not offend in future.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on the points that he raised. The amendment is unnecessary for the purposes of identification. The special tribunal may have to take non-intimate samples. Such samples include a range of matters that I could read into the record if it would help the hon. Gentleman. The essential thing is that DNA can be taken from a non-intimate sample, and such a measure is therefore an appropriate one for future involvement in a range of issues.

Non-intimate samples include the following: a sample of a person’s hair, other than their pubic hair; a sample taken from a nail or under a nail; a swab taken from a part of the person’s body, including the mouth; saliva; and a footprint or similar impression. That will allow for DNA to be taken as a non-intimate sample. I hope that that will assure the hon. Gentleman and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, at beginning insert

‘Except as provided by subsection (5A)’.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 72, in clause 9, page 6, line 34, at end insert—

‘(5A)Where a person on licence under this section had pleaded guilty at his trial to the offence, the Secretary of State may reduce the duration of the licence by up to a quarter of the sentence.’.

No. 78, in clause 9, page 6, line 35, leave out subsection (6).

No. 79, in clause 9, page 6, line 41, leave out ‘(6)’ and insert ‘(5A)’.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Amendments Nos. 77, 72 and 79 relate to providing incentives for people to come forward to admit their crimes. As we have done in previous amendments, we are trying to provide a defendant with an incentive to admit to what they have done.

There is nothing in the Bill that would provide an incentive for someone to admit to committing any crime or any of the serious offences with which they might be charged. That is because it is up to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to state the offences that it thinks are relevant to a particular individual rather than it being up to the applicant to state the offences. It is also because a person cannot be detained or questioned. No powers of entry or search are allowed. As a result, the prosecution case will potentially be very weak. In addition, if a person is found guilty at the tribunal they can appeal. As we know, they will not serve a single minute in custody or in jail. Given all those provisions, what possible reason would anyone have to come forward to admit to what they have done?

I would understand any concern in the Committee about the amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on it. I do not particularly like proposing that a person’s time on licence may be shortened, but it provides some kind of incentive for a defendant to stand up to admit that they have done wrong. The Government have argued about bringing closure through this Bill. How can that be done if lots of people are simply unwilling to come forward?

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as currently worded, clause 9 gives one group of people an incentive to come forward: those who are at present languishing at Her Majesty’s pleasure but who can apply for a licence under the clause and get their sentence commuted to an amnesty?

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The hon. Lady is right. I had not considered that. People who are in prison could use the provision as a get-out-of-jail-free card. The Minister might want to comment on that.

Amendment No. 78 has widespread support. I tabled it because I wanted an explanation from the Government as to what subsection (6), particularly its paragraph (b), means. Does it mean that where someone should have been sentenced in 1970 to 20 years, for example, the fact that more than two thirds of 20 years has already passed means that they will not have to be subject to the licence?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I will ask my hon. Friends to oppose the amendment, but the hon. Gentleman’s proposal is interesting, and I do not reject it out of hand. The idea behind it might be considered in the future, but sadly, there is a technical defect in the amendment itself; because of the way that it is phrased, it will not achieve what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve, and I cannot accept it for that reason. The amendment is intended to ensure that, following a guilty plea, the duration of the sentence is reduced. However, it would reduce the element of licence, but the sentence would remain. Therefore, if an individual were to plead guilty and their licence was reduced or removed, at the end of that licence period he or she would have to serve a period in prison.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I am sorry that I had to dash out of the room, Mr. Taylor. My cold is getting worse.

According to the Library notes on the Bill, there are 127 failed applications from the original Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) mentioned, a lot of people are currently in prison. How does this Bill affect those people?

If I could—

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. We will take one intervention at a time.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If I may, I will address the point raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) shortly, after I have dealt with the first part of the amendment.

Despite the amendment’s technical failing—it would have the opposite effect to what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire wants to achieve—I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. However, let me explain the guiding principle of our scheme: as far as possible, within the terms of the Government’s commitment of 2003, we would have a judicial process, and what Members have said about that process will also be taken into account. Seeking a guilty plea as the hook on which to hang the special remission of sentence, rather than seeking a confession or statement of remorse, would make things much harder to quantify in due course.

The amendment has technical problems, and sentencing should not be placed directly in the hands of the Secretary of State, which the amendment would effectively do, instead of in the hands of the judge. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has made suggestions for a judicial solution: as I have said, I am not cool towards that, and I will reflect on his proposals.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East raised a question about clause 9(6). That provides that if an individual gets a licence, the licence and sentence last only as long as the sentence, if the person gets time off for remission, as in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. If an individual is already in jail, they can apply for the scheme under clause 3(2)(c), but it will only apply to those who are already eligible for the early release scheme after two years, under the 1998 Act. Again, the defining moment in respect of offences is 10 April 1998.

I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will not press his amendment to a Division. There might be some merit in it—I can say no more than that—but I want to examine the issues, and the current amendment is technically incapable of achieving his objectives.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am not completely clear about the Minister’s explanation in respect of amendment No. 78. I was following what he was saying—but, obviously, not closely enough.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I have just ripped up my notes on that. For the first time in Committee, I must say that, for that reason, that is a matter that I will reflect on in future. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard and reflects on what I have said, he will realise that the points that I brought before the Committee are valid. I think that he will subscribe to the comments made on clause 9(6), which he mentioned, when he reflects on them.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

May I press the Minister on that? There are a number of people who have not been released from prison, as we have established—127, according to the Library research paper. It seems strange that we are inviting on-the-runs, some of whom have committed heinous crimes, back into Northern Ireland when others who may have committed lesser crimes are being made to continue their punishment. The concerns being expressed under the amendments are about seeing justice done, and about the fact that we are inviting back people who are on the run, but there seems to be a discrepancy. If I were to come forward and say—

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. Interventions should be brief.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There are a number of categories of individual that will qualify under the Bill. There are those outside the jurisdiction who will qualify; there are those before the historic inquiries team who will qualify; and there are those in the security forces who will qualify. At some point in future, depending on the time scale of the introduction of the scheme, individuals in jail may reach the stage at which they can apply for the scheme. I do not have the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned on the number of individuals.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether someone who fails to get a licence under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 can get a Northern Ireland (Offences) Act licence. That depends on whether they are eligible, and that takes us back to the eligibility criteria in clause 3; they may qualify for the scheme at the time of its introduction. I hope that that answers his point.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

For the record, will the Minister confirm that certain prisoners are now eligible, under clause 9, to apply for the scheme and to have their sentence commuted to an amnesty? Also, will he confirm that Mr. Sean Kelly and Mr. Johnny Adair et al. can have their current licence commuted to a preferable licence under the scheme?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The hon. Lady is correct, in so far as individuals who are in jail when the scheme is introduced can avail themselves of it, just as they can, at present, avail themselves of the early release scheme if their offences were committed prior to 10 April 1998. Again, I cannot yet tell the hon. Lady when that will be effective, because we cannot at this stage give a date for the introduction of the scheme, because it depends on parliamentary procedure, and the approval and introduction of the Bill. An individual would need to be eligible for the scheme—that is, they would need to meet the conditions, which are similar to those in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 for the early release scheme. That would ultimately be a matter for the certification commissioner to determine.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Does this mean that Ken Barrett, for example, who was convicted of the murder of Pat Finucane, and who is serving a prison term, but whose crime was committed before 10 April 1998, would be eligible to apply for a licence under the Bill? Given that he has been refused early release by the Sentence Review Commission, will similar criteria be applied, and how will his case be handled under the criteria?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I do not want to comment in detail on individual cases, because it is not appropriate to do so in this discussion. However, when the scheme is operational, individuals will be able to apply for it, and if they are eligible under the certification commissioner’s guidance, they will qualify for the scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot comment on individual cases at this time.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

I am concerned that there is a loophole. I could come forward and say that I committed the crimes attributed of one of the 127 people who failed to qualify for the early release scheme, and who said that they were innocent. I could come forward and say, “I committed that crime; that person in jail should really be free.” I could then be granted a licence, and I would go free. I would then have a document that I cared about less than I do a few points on my driver’s licence. The person in prison, who did commit the murder, would then also be set free, because it would be thought that he did not take part in the murder.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

There were several suppositions in the hon. Gentleman’s argument that I cannot go into, but one was about an individual who says that he has undertaken a crime for someone who is in jail for it at the moment. In all such matters, there must first be an investigation by the police. Under clause 3, people need to have a certificate of eligibility. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has to state in writing reasonable grounds for the charge. People need to be outside the jurisdiction and must satisfy other criteria. A range of issues must be examined by the police and others. Again, under earlier provisions, the certification commissioner’s approval must be obtained for the individual to qualify for the scheme. Given the examples that have been put forward, I cannot suppose either generally or specifically what the certification commissioner will decide nor whether the individuals will qualify for the scheme in those circumstances.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. I do not intend to accept any more interventions on that particular point, as they are not aimed at the amendment itself.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw the amendment.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am flabbergasted. The Minister has more or less conceded that, on amendment No. 78, he has ripped apart his own defence. He has thrown it on the ground and cannot read it back to me. I shall read what was said in Hansard, but I need assurance on a core point. If a person ought to have been sentenced in 1970 to, say, 20 years in prison and, in theory, will have served more than two thirds of his time, is the hon. Gentleman saying that that will not prevent the person from ending up with a licence and so on? I should be grateful if he would clarify matters.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. A fixed-term prisoner outside the scheme will have his sentence reduced by remission. He will be released at the two-thirds point. Clause 9(6) is designed to ensure consistency with that principle.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Perhaps I am being thick about this—[Interruption.]—if such a thing were possible, but I am still not clear whether, under subsection (6)(b), someone who is found guilty through the process would actually not end up having to serve time on a licence at all. The Minister read out something that was connected with the matter, but it was not a direct answer to my question. I am pursuing this because I would have a major problem if—

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As I have said that I am not unwarm to some of the hon. Gentleman’s points, would it be helpful if I wrote to him to clarify matters? I know that that is always the defence that is used when answers are not clear, but it is the first time that I have made that suggestion in the Committee. If he withdraws his amendment now, he will still be at liberty to table it on Report if he is unhappy with my clarification.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

That is a helpful suggestion. If that unintended consequence is indeed inherent in the clause, the Government would probably want to consider it. On that basis, I shall not pursue amendment No. 78 to a vote.

As for the other amendments, and how we might incentivise individuals to come forward and take responsibility for proactively admitting to serious offences, I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister is willing to reflect on these matters. I see no party political element to this. On reflection, he may find the suggestion helpful and want to introduce it on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Disqualification from district policing partnership—

‘(1)Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2)In sub-paragraph (4) after “licence” insert “under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998”.

(3)After sub-paragraph (4)(a) insert—

“(aa)the lapse of his licence issued under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Act 2006.”.’.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Minister might wish to consider the new clause in the same frame of mind as he did the previous group of amendments. Currently, a person who has benefited from the prisoner early release scheme is entitled to become an independent member of a district policing partnership, if nominated, by virtue of their licence. I am concerned that the same principle will apply to anyone who receives a licence under the scheme in this Bill, as there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that.

I imagine that, by definition, if someone receives a licence under the Bill, it will have been proven that they committed an offence in relation to terrorism. But they will not have been to prison and they may not therefore have been seen to have been rehabilitated, which, after all, was one of the elements that was assumed to have occurred with individuals who end up on district policing partnerships having served time for their offences.

As the Minister knows, there are already serious concerns in Northern Ireland at paramilitaries being allowed to serve on DPPs; I believe that there will be even more concern about anyone who is granted a licence under the Bill doing so. The new clause does not prevent a person with a licence from ever serving on a DPP, however. They will be able to do so once their licence expires. I assume that they would not have broken the conditions of their licence by that time or, if they had, they would have been detained. So that is an insurance policy to ensure lawful behaviour by the individual before they become a member of a DPP.

The new clause would ensure that there is confidence in such appointments, should they ever occur. I seek the Minister’s views on that.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the new clause in the way that he has. We have had a reasonable discussion on the provisions of the legislation and I hope that clause 9 will stand part of the Bill.

New clause 9, which the hon. Gentleman tabled, raises an important issue. I know that he raised it in a genuine, productive and constructive way. The effect of the new clause would be to permit someone convicted and released on licence under this scheme to be a member of a DPP once their licence has expired. It closely reflects provisions made in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 that would allow those convicted of an offence and released on licence under the early release scheme to join a DPP.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will know that the Government have not currently commenced that provision. We have not done so because we made a decision not to do so until such time as we judge it right to introduce the provision. We have not yet made such a judgment and will not do so at least until the Assembly has been restored and possibly until, at some future point, criminal justice matters have been devolved to it.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister just put it on the record that the Government’s position on allowing those with criminal records to take their places on DPPs as independent members is completely contrary to the recommendation in the Patten report? They have driven a coach and horses through that report. Will he confirm that point?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

As the hon. Lady knows, I am not the Minister with direct responsibility for the police, and I would not wish to give the Committee an answer that proved subsequently to be false. I am not aware of the Patten report’s recommendation on this matter. I am being open and honest with the hon. Lady in saying that. It is not my direct area of responsibility.

I can say something that is within my area of responsibility, however. The provisions for serving on the DPPs under the legislation that I mentioned have not been commenced by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), for the simple reason that we have not yet judged that the time is right for us to do that as a Government.

My hon. Friend will consider when the time will be right at some point in the future. That judgment will depend on two conditions: a restoration of the Assembly and other issues such as a return of policing responsibilities to the Assembly. We have to make a judgment on the issue as a Government, and I do not wish to mislead the hon. Lady on a question to which I do not know the answer because it is not within my direct area of responsibility.

The Government have identified the subject of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire as an issue for possible examination in future. However, again, they have not made a decision on that. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I understand what the Minister says about the non-commencement of the core legislation. If that legislation were commenced and if new clause 9 were not agreed to, would not the consequence be as I described in my opening comments? In other words, at least in theory, somebody could apply for and be successful in being taken on by a DPP even while they were serving a licence.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Indeed, the scenario painted by the hon. Gentleman is correct. I say to him again that the Government have identified that issue; we are reflecting on it at the moment. We have not commenced the clauses in other legislation that would give rise to the anomaly that could occur in this legislation for the reasons that I have outlined. There may be opportunities, either during the passage of this Bill or during consideration of further Northern Ireland legislation that may come forward in the next 12 months, to examine that issue in the event of our determining to implement the original legislation in the 2000 and 2003 Acts.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the points that he has made. I cannot give him a definitive answer because we have not yet determined whether to progress the scheme as a whole in relation to previous legislation. If we do, an anomaly will be created, and that is one element on which the Government will have to reflect during the passage of this Bill—and, if this Bill is passed in its current form, during future legislation—to address that anomaly.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Minister’s comments are helpful, but slightly disturbing for the following reason. He said that he would like to reflect on the issue now, but also implies—in fact, says explicitly—that if the other legislation were commenced, then, and only then, would this legislation be altered.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am saying that, under previous legislation, there is already provision to allow individuals to take part in the DPPs once their licence has expired under the early release scheme. That provision is in place, but has not been commenced because the Government have not judged that the time is right to commence it. At some point in the future, we may judge that the time is right. If, two or three years down the line, the scheme is introduced, the anomaly may well arise. Before that, there will be opportunities to consider whether to extend the legislation to cover this scheme, and whether to introduce the scheme at all.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. I remind the Committee that interventions, particularly ministerial interventions, should be short.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am grateful for your forbearance, Mr. Taylor; the dialogue is constructive and helpful. My concern continues to be that although the Minister says that the anomaly—this loophole—will be addressed when other legislation is commenced, there is a risk that it will be forgotten. My concern is that if we do not provide for it in this Bill now, we shall end up with an anomaly, an unintended consequence, that we are in a position to fix now.

I was hoping that the Minister would say that he would reflect on the matter and consider tabling, if necessary, a Government amendment on Report, to close a loophole about which neither of us disagree, but which I feel we could reasonably address now.

I have one other thought. I do not see how resolving the issue now would involve any cost to the Government. If I understand things correctly, putting such a provision in the Bill today would in no way cause the commencement of the legislative procedure that allows those under licence to enter DPPs.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

If the hon. Gentleman presses his amendment, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to reject it.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I know. I was not expecting to win. I am not trying to beat the Government; I am trying to help them.

To be equally direct to the Minister, I wish that he would say, “This is a fair point, the Government will look at it and we’ll table a Government amendment on Report; then we can close the loophole.” It is not complicated.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I thought that I had said that, but if I have not I shall try again at some point in future.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am deliriously enlightened by, and grateful for, what the Minister says.

Clause 10 - Conditions of licence

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 135, in clause 10, page 7, line 9, leave out from beginning to second ‘the’.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 137, in clause 10, page 7, line 12, at end insert—

‘(d)that he has never been convicted of a crime carrying a prison sentence of five years or more.’.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

Clause 10 deals with the conditions to which the licence is subject. Subsection (2)(b) refers to:

“in the case of a sentence of life imprisonment, the condition that he does not become a danger to the public”

Amendment No. 135 would omit the words

“in the case of a sentence of life imprisonment”,

so that the provision would apply if the person became a danger to the public, regardless of whether was a life sentence. That is sensible. We cannot understand why that should be a licence condition if one has received a life sentence, but not if one has not. Surely, the critical point is whether the person is likely to be a danger to the public. To reject the amendment would be to say, “It’s okay if they are a danger to the public.” That cannot be the Minister’s intention.

We tried to introduce a similar condition in clause 3, but we did not manage to get the amendment made. We are not certain yet whether people returning to the jurisdiction will have to face court—indeed, there will not be a court, but a tribunal—or whether they will have to spend any time in prison. Surely we can expect that they do not become a danger to the public, having been given the get-out-of-jail-free card. That should be a minimum requirement.

Amendment No. 137 would add a further condition to ensure that the individual in question has never been convicted of a crime carrying a prison sentence of five years or more.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The amendments would place additional conditions on a person holding a licence. In normal criminal proceedings, the judgment on whether a person is a danger to the public is relevant in decisions on the passing of a life sentence, but it is not used in other circumstances. The proposal is therefore a departure from normal criminal proceedings.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

If the Minister is saying that terrorists in Northern Ireland should be treated in the same way as murderers in Great Britain, I go along with that, but I do not think that that is what the Bill is about. It is about creating special conditions—letting people go free no matter what they have done. Surely we can then impose the restriction that they do not become a danger to the public?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I would be very hesitant about setting a precedent in the Bill on that matter.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

The Bill is a precedent.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I would be very hesitant about setting a precedent in the Bill in that respect.

I also point out to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury that consideration of whether a person is a danger to the public is only a part of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 early release scheme in respect of lifers. The conditions of licence are to be kept broadly similar in the Bill so that similar terms and treatment can be applied to people convicted of pre-Belfast agreement offences. The Government prefer the conditions to be kept as similar as possible.

There is a clear distinction between the terms of the early release scheme and the conditions of the scheme in the Bill: we have added the condition that a person must not have received a sentence of five years or more for any offence. That has been done simply in recognition of the fact that the early release scheme has applied primarily to people who were in prison in 1998. The new scheme acknowledges that seven years have elapsed since then and that there needs to be some measure of an applicant’s behaviour. To keep the terms of the scheme as close as possible to the terms of the early release scheme, that condition in relation to other offences applies only to the period after April 1998.

We have taken steps to tighten the licence, and I urge the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to withdraw the amendment.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We have now reached the utterly absurd. I cannot understand why the Minister resists the amendment. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said, it is similar to one that the Conservatives tabled to clause 3 on the certificate of eligibility and conditions that would be imposed on it, and to one that my colleagues and I tabled in respect of those certificates.

I want the Minister to be very clear about what he is saying to the public in Northern Ireland. He is saying that the only people who are a danger to the public whom he wants to stop having a licence are those who have been sentenced to life in prison. He is quite content to allow people who are a danger to the public to be released on licence provided that they have not been given a life sentence. That is a position that the Minister cannot possibly defend.

The Minister should not talk to this Committee about setting precedents. Every clause, every line and every word of this Bill has set precedents that I hope will never be followed in any other piece of legislation.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

With respect to the Minister, I found his remarks about precedents astonishing. This entire Bill is a precedent. I have not come across anything like it in my short time in the House, and more experienced Members have also not seen a Bill that sets such a precedent in respect of dealing with criminals. The Bill is very controversial; that is why we have been given extra time to debate the entire Bill.

The Bill invites on-the-runs back to Northern Ireland. It invites criminals back into communities. Surely the Committee’s concern must be to make sure that those on the run who have not spent one day in jail and who are to go back to those communities will not be a danger to them. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve. It would make sure that, with all the wrongs in the Bill, we do not put those communities in any more danger. If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, I invite him to say on the record that he is not willing to accept the amendment, but he is willing to give a licence to on-the-runs who have not been given a life sentence but who are a danger to society, and happy to allow them to rejoin society.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

What I have tried to do in the Bill is to mirror the early release scheme in respect of life sentences. That mirroring will ensure that, as is the case under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act early release scheme, consideration of whether a person is a danger to the public forms part of the scheme in respect of life sentences.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Why does the Minister insist on using terms such as “mirror the early release scheme” of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act? He is doing nothing of the kind. Under that Act, those who are responsible for murder had to stay in jail for a third of their sentence or serve at least two more years. It is not mirroring the Act to say, “Here’s your get-out-of-jail free card. Away you go, boys!”

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

Over the many hours that the Committee has sat, we have gone over how the scheme in the Bill compares to the early release scheme. I am talking about conditions of release in relation to that point. The hon. Gentleman and I know that there are qualitative differences between the early release scheme under the Good Friday agreement and the scheme that we are bringing forward today; but those differences relate simply to the passage of time, not the effect of, or entrance to, that scheme. Consideration of whether a person was a danger to the public was only part of the 1998 Act early release scheme. In the scheme before us, I am trying to mirror the conditions that applied in the early release scheme that operated 1998.

Let me put the issue in context. It is important that hon. Members take note of these figures: of the 447 prisoners released under the early release scheme, 15 have had their licences suspended and were recalled to prison. The same conditions that I am proposing in the Bill related to the Sentences Act, under which only 15 of 447 prisoners had their licence revoked. The assessment for the early-release scheme is similar to that for the scheme in the Bill.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister says that only 15 prisoners have had their licence removed, but some of them were responsible for destroying the community in the lower Shankill and disrupting the lives of hundreds of people in that community. One person who had his licence revoked was found by the police to be responsible for stirring up interface violence at the top of the Shankill road at the Ardoyne, which resulted in scores of people losing their homes, so let us not make light of the fact that only 15 licences were removed. People lose their licence because they are a danger to the public. Whether it is one or 100, tight conditions are essential.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

What I have said to the Committee relates only to the amendment on whether the condition of being a danger to the public at large applies. That condition was part of the early release scheme, just as I propose that it should be part of the scheme in the Bill. The condition was applied to people with life sentences. All I said to hon. Members in my response was that I am trying to ensure the same conditions for the scheme in this Bill.

I mentioned the figures to show how early release scheme has worked and its impact. Some 447 people went through the early release scheme and only 15 had their licences revoked, and of those 15, 14 are in prison today. I simply tell the hon. Member for East Antrim that to give him a measure of how the previous scheme operated. Although I know that he and his party did not like the scheme and opposed it, I am seeking to replicate in the Bill the conditions in the previous scheme. That is why I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The hon. Member for Belfast, East put it rather well when he said that we have reached the position of ultimate absurdity, or words to that effect.

Jeffrey Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister has just stated that 15 people had their licences revoked, 14 of whom are in prison. I am aware of at least two of those cases. They involve Sean Kelly and Johnny Adair, who are both out of prison at the moment. The Minister’s figures cannot possibly be right and he has misled the Committee.

Mr. Hansonrose—

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I shall reply to the intervention, then give way. I am unsure what the relevance of the figures was. They do not tell us anything. At a certain point in the process people were not arrested for being members of the IRA. That did not mean that the IRA had gone away; it just meant that it was politically convenient not to arrest them for that particular offence.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Perhaps the Minister is saying that if the amendment was agreed to we would be able to stop 15 people who went out and caused mayhem in the community from doing just that. He was probably willing to accept the amendment.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I cannot understand the Minister’s reasoning. Perhaps he will tell us what it is when he intervenes.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am intervening only to say to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley that I have not misled the Committee. I gave out the figures that I have before me, which are Government figures.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

I thank the Minister for that intervention. I feel a bit like a referee in this contest. Perhaps facilitator might be a better word.

May I suggest to the Minister that he asks his officials to check those figures and that he writes to members of the Committee? The hon. Member for Lagan Valley has named people who are not in prison. None the less, I do not see how the Minister’s point about the number of licences that have been withdrawn is that relevant to the point that I was making.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East said, to shy away from the amendments because they might set a precedent is beyond belief. The entire Bill is a precedent—an unwelcome one. To give just one example of many that can be found in the Bill, retired judges do not preside over murder cases in Great Britain.

The Minister says that he wants to be consistent with the position on life sentences in Great Britain, but to my knowledge, people who get life sentences go to prison. It is a condition of parole that people are not released until they are not a danger to the public, but such people are already in prison. The situation is completely different and we cannot put the two together. The people who will go through the tribunal will not serve a single day in prison.

All the amendment is asking is that people do not become a danger to the public. The clause does not say that the PSNI or anybody else should be involved. It states:

“does not become a danger to the public”.

The condition is not that such people might become a danger to the public but that they actually have become a danger to the public. Can the Minister say that that is okay? I cannot understand how the Government could reject this gentle and sensible amendment.

Tobias Ellwood (Conservative, Bournemouth East)

There is a big distinction between on-the-runs and those who were part of the original 1998 agreement. We are dealing with hardened criminals. The Minister said that 15 out of 447 is not a bad number. We should be aiming for zero. We have a duty of care to ensure that whatever laws we pass will not impact on the community. I believe that the on-the-runs are hardened criminals. They are not going to join bridge clubs in communities.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

My hon. Friend is right. I will tell him exactly what such people will do: they will rejoin the IRA if that is where their sympathies lie, because they will not lose their licence or be prevented from benefiting from the scheme if they do so. They will be prevented from entering the scheme if they rejoin or join a specified organisation, but not if they return, join the IRA and, presumably, even become a danger to the public.

Clause 11 - Suspension and revocation of licence

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, at end insert

‘or if the person who holds a licence later glorifies the offence for which the licence was issued.’.

I shall be brief. I hope that other Committee members will move their amendments just as quickly. They did not follow the precedent I set on the previous occasion.

The amendment relates to whether and in what circumstances a licence should be suspended. It indicates that for the purposes of suspension if a licence holder is responsible for glorifying the act to which the licence applies, the licence should be suspended. That does not seem unreasonable to me, and if anybody thinks that such a thing is unlikely, they do not know the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. They have not seen Michael Stone and Johnny Adair going to the Ulster hall after their release, Keenan after his release, the Colombia three being cheered at Sinn Fein conferences, and how quickly the three accused of being in the Stormont spy ring were trailed before the press.

Let us be clear: such things will happen. Rita O’Hare and others will be brought back from the places where they are hiding at present. They will be trailed in front of the press and justify their actions, just as happened in those previous cases. Is that the message that the Minister wants to go out? He said that one of the purposes of this legislation was to draw a line under the past. Surely the victims should not have to endure not only seeing justice denied, but being tormented by those who have already inflicted suffering on them. The amendment would prevent the glorification—a term with which the Government are familiar—of the offence, and that is an issue about which the Government feel strongly. I hope that they will consider the amendment appropriate, and accept it.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I am grateful for way in which the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment. I entirely understand the sentiment behind it and share much of it. The prospect of individuals returning triumphantly to Northern Ireland, receiving a hero’s welcome and parading their activities is unattractive, and would certainly prove galling to victims and the community at large.

I understand entirely the sentiments that have driven the hon. Gentleman to table the amendment. There is a place for restricting the glorification of terrorism—indeed, ensuring that we do just that is a key part of the Government’s proposals this Session. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Terrorism Bill that was recently before the House seeks to do exactly what he wants: to prevent the glorification of terrorism.

My difficulty is that, although I share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment, I do not think it appropriate that we should rely on this Bill to curb such glorification specifically in respect of offences in Northern Ireland. There is a place for restricting the glorification of terrorism, but I remain of the view that it is best dealt with by the Home Office anti-terrorist legislation, which applies to Northern Ireland and has recently been considered by the House.

I remind Members of the exact terms of the legislation that has already been considered by the House. It states that

“the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which ... glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences”.

I believe that that meets the obligations that in the amendment.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The issue is unquestionably the same, but the outcome will not be if the Minister relies on the Terrorism Bill. I spoke on that very clause. Glorification would be a lesser offence. If someone’s licence for a life sentence was suspended, they would be in for life. The Minister is not suggesting that the House will pass legislation that will put somebody in prison for life for the offence of glorification.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not wish this Bill to cut across the Home Office legislation, which covers the offence of the glorification of terrorism. That would be confusing. If individuals were to return and glorify in their actions, I would be revolted, as would all decent, honourable Members. However, as I believe that Home Office legislation will cover that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am unconvinced. People will come back, and they will cause offence, and the Minister will again have allowed the victims to be further insulted and pained by not having taken action.

Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)

The hon. Gentleman made the point that the Terrorism Bill will not have the same effect as the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, but there is another point to consider if we do not agree to the amendment. The Terrorism Bill will not, in practice, be applied in Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Unquestionably, we will have somebody suggesting that it should not be applied, after consideration in the round. The Government used that term the last time a similar case came to court. Therefore, I am afraid that I am not convinced. If the Minister wants to do something for the victims, he should include that in the Bill. If he does not, he will be putting his finger in the victims’ eye once again.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 81, in clause 11, page 7, line 19, leave out ‘appeals commissioners’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 82, in clause 11, page 7, line 21, leave out ‘appeals commissioners’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.

Amendment No. 83, in clause 11, page 7, line 22, leave out ‘commissioners think’ and insert ‘Court thinks’.

Amendment No. 84, in clause 11, page 7, line 23, leave out ‘they’ and insert ‘it’.

Amendment No. 85, in clause 11, page 7, line 24, leave out ‘they’ and insert ‘it’.

Amendment No. 86, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out ‘commissioners’ and insert ‘Court’.

Amendment No. 87, in clause 11, page 7, line 25, leave out ‘their’ and insert ‘its’.

Amendment No. 89, in clause 11, page 7, line 42, leave out subsection (10).

Amendment No. 90, in clause 12, page 8, line 4, leave out ‘appeals commissioners’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.

Amendment No. 91, in clause 12, page 8, line 5, leave out ‘appeals commissioners’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.

Amendment No. 92, in clause 12, page 8, line 8, leave out ‘appeals commissioners’ and insert ‘Court of Appeal’.

Clause 13 stand part.

Schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The amendments relate to the debate under clause 8 on trial by the Crown court, rather than a special tribunal. We believe that these cases should be tried in the same way as any other terrorist offences, by the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland as it exists. If the cases were to be heard by the Crown court, there would be a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, and the amendments reflect that. This is the simplest way to ensure that there would be full judicial procedure and to give assurance that the system itself is as impartial as a legal system should be.

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

I hope to be as speedy as the hon. Gentleman. The role of the appeals commissioners is different from that of the Court of Appeal, and its functions would not sit comfortably in that court. Whereas the Court of Appeal hears appeals against a conviction or sentence passed by a lower court, the appeals commissioners will have the task of reviewing the Secretary of State’s suspension of a licence. The appeals commissioners have a different role.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

Will the Minister clarify one small point that crops up from clause 11? He just said that the Secretary of State will be obliged to—must—give notice of the suspension of a licence to a happy recipient of one of these ghastly licences. How much notice will be given to that person? Will it be seven days, so that he can go the nearest airport and fly back to Benidorm? Will the Minister confirm that it will be a licence with notification from the Secretary of State that will allow that person to leave Northern Ireland before any further proceedings are taken?

David Hanson (Labour, Delyn)

The notification will be established in the rules under the scheme, when it is published in due course. The decision about the period of notice has not yet been taken by the Secretary of State. This is a matter not for the legislation, but one that we shall consider when we establish the rules for the scheme.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

The Minister just confirmed that the net effect of the Bill will come under clause 6: when a person has a certificate of eligibility, there will be a stop on gathering further information. When individuals are notified by the Secretary of State that their licence has been suspended, that means that they can wave their certificate on their way out of Northern Ireland and out of the jurisdiction once again. Is that correct?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.