| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No.12:
The noble Lord said: I shall be mercifully brief at this time of the night. I fail to see any good reason for using the terminology of the very useful Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act which is designed for very short-term, limited use. What good reason can there be for departing from the much more solid Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 than one of those ships that pass in the night?
I deal briefly with the linked amendments. During Second Reading your Lordships' House expressed unease over executive action by Ministers. My suggestion in those amendments is that the Secretary of State should be relieved of any such embarrassment and the responsibility should be placed on an assistant chief constable or a rank above. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise to support Amendments Nos. 14 and 22 in this group. The clause provides for what are to be specified organisations and hence to be covered by the provisions of the clause in relation to policemen giving evidence. Clause 1, new Section 2B(1)(a) and (b) deal with organisations specified under the sentences Act, but new Section 2B(2) and the equivalent in the later clause covered by Amendment No. 22 provide that,
It seems very odd to provide that there shall be an organisation specified under subsection (2) but not specified under the sentences Act--that is to say, an organisation of which a member can be locked up on the evidence of a policeman in the way we have discussed in some detail but still providing that the members of that organisation be let out of prison under the other legislation. On the one hand we are locking
Lord Dubs: The primary intention of Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 22 and 23 is to move away from the Bill's present aim of targeting proscribed organisations that are not maintaining a complete ceasefire. Instead, all proscribed organisations would be caught. We have made it very clear that such an approach is not the policy behind the Bill. It is central to what we are trying to achieve--isolation of rejectionist splinter groups--for the Secretary of State to be able to make the distinction and identify those organisations that are not maintaining a ceasefire.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 52 seek to replace the reference to the Secretary of State's belief with a reference to the oral evidence of a police officer of or above the rank of assistant chief constable.
First, I believe that the amendments are seriously flawed. They refer to oral evidence being given, but not in the context of any court proceedings. To whom is the assistant chief constable giving evidence? If it is the Secretary of State, then she would not be bound by that evidence. She would have to decide whether she believed it. If she accepted the evidence, she would be the only authority who could bring forward an order specifying those organisations. I can think of no precedent for a Secretary of State having to act without discretion on the evidence of a senior police officer. I suggest that it would be a dangerous precedent to set. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments for the reasons I have given.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: With respect, the Minister has not dealt with Amendments Nos. 14 and 22 to which I directed attention. Amendment No. 14 would remove lines 15 to 29 on page 3; that is to say, it deletes the provision for the Secretary of State to specify an organisation for the purposes of police evidence which is not specified under the sentences Act. What organisation will be specified for the purposes of police superintendents giving evidence which is not to be specified under the sentences Act, under which prisoners are to be let out, even though its members can be prosecuted under this new accelerated procedure--assuming that it is effective, which after the Second Reading debate we are all allowed to doubt?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I cannot claim to be satisfied with the explanation and response from the Minister. If this were a normal debate, where there would be further stages for scrutiny and perhaps friendly and fruitful negotiation, it might be worth pursuing this matter further. But, as the previous debate and its termination have shown, we are powerless to do
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 13:
The noble Lord said: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, deprived me of the opportunity of a reply to Amendment No. 14, but there we are. Amendment No. 13 is directed to the same clause. Under new Section 2B(1)(a) and (b) the clause provides that organisations whose members are subjected to the new provisions about police superintendents' evidence are to be those specified under the sentences Act which are also proscribed for the purposes of the main Act. It seems odd that there should be the possibility of an organisation being specified under the sentences Act but not proscribed under the PTA. The PTA states that it is illegal to belong to an organisation; the sentences Act decides whether or not people are let out. There are some odd overlaps between these various categories into which terrorist organisations can fall, and this is one example. Is there any realistic possibility of an organisation being specified under the sentences Act, which would mean its prisoners not being allowed out, but not being proscribed for the purposes of the prevention of terrorism Act? If there is no such possibility, paragraph (b) is not required and Amendment No. 13 takes it out. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. The effect of the amendment would be to delete the reference to a proscribed organisation for the purposes of statements and inferences under Clause 1. That would mean that only specified organisations were covered. However, some organisations are proscribed in Northern Ireland, but not in the rest of the United Kingdom--for example, the LVF.
It is for that reason that the draftsman has chosen to separate out the reference to a specified organisation and a proscribed organisation in this part of Clause 1. Without it, membership of the LVF would be an offence under the Act in Great Britain, but under the PTA it is not a proscribed organisation.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: If the LVF is not proscribed for the purposes of the PTA, then presumably it will not be covered at all by this. New Section 2B(1)(a) states that "it is specified" under the sentences Act, which the LVF is, and it is also an organisation which is proscribed. I believe the noble Lord said that the LVF was not proscribed for that purpose in which case it would not be covered by the clauses about a superintendent giving evidence.
As I have referred to the LVF, I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to respond to the question I put earlier during the Second Reading. He
Lord Dubs: I am afraid I am not aware whether it has announced that it will decommission. It is possible that it has done so, but the knowledge has not come my way.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In that case, what about the other point? If the LVF is not proscribed under the main Act, will it be covered by the parts of the Bill which deal with superintendents giving evidence?
Lord Dubs: I am trying to think my way through that. Possibly yes. Perhaps I may repeat what I said. Some organisations are proscribed in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom. The LVF is an obvious example. The LVF in Great Britain would be covered were paragraph (b) not in the Bill. The LVF is proscribed under the EPA in Northern Ireland. We must distinguish between the situation in Great Britain and the situation in Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Lord understands that--or would he like me to repeat it?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I thought the Minister repeated what he said earlier, in which case, as far as Great Britain is concerned, the LVF will not be subject to the new provisions about superintendents giving evidence because it is not proscribed under the PTA. For the LVF to be subject to the provisions it would need to be both specified under the Sentences Act and proscribed under the PTA. Both are required. If the LVF is not proscribed under the PTA then its members will not have the--I was going to say advantage--disadvantage of being subjected to a superintendent's evidence should the prosecution take place in Great Britain. I accept that under the later provisions they will be covered as far as prosecutions in Northern Ireland are concerned.
Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("specified") to ("and") in line 12 and insert ("in Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996").
"the Secretary of State may by order specify an organisation which is not specified under ... the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act".
So the special provisions in relation to policemen giving evidence shall apply to that organisation even though the sentences Act does not apply.
Page 3, line 12, leave out from ("below") to end of line 14.
12.15 a.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page