HL Deb 03 April 2003 vol 646 cc1430-41

13 After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

"INDEPENDENT MEMBERS: DECLARATION AGAINST TERRORISM (1) Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (district policing partnerships) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph 1 (interpretation) after sub-paragraph (3) insert— (3A) In this Schedule a "declaration against terrorism" means a declaration in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, with the substitution of the words "if appointed" for the words "if elected". (3) In paragraph 5 (council's nominations of independent members) in sub-paragraph (4) after "if" insert "(a)" and after "the DPP" insert— , or

  1. (b) he has not made a declaration against terrorism".
(4) In paragraph 7 (removal of members from office) in subparagraph (1) after paragraph (a) insert— (5) In paragraph 7 after sub-paragraph (2) insert— (3) Section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies to determine whether an independent member has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism as it applies to determine whether a person who has made a declaration required for the purpose of section 3, 4 or 5 of that Act has acted in breach of the terms of the declaration. (4) As applied by sub-paragraph (3), section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies with the following modifications—
  1. (a) in subsection (1), for the words from "after" to "the Assembly" substitute "when he is an independent member of a district policing partnership";
  2. (b) omit subsection (4);
  3. (c) in subsection (5), in the definition of "public meeting" after paragraph (c) insert—
  4. "(d) any meeting of a district policing partnership or a committee of a district policing partnership (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and
  5. (e) any meeting of a sub-group established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 or a committee of such a sub-group (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and".
(6) Subsections (1) to (5) come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.

When we discussed the passage of the 2000 Act it was specifically said by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer that in due time we hoped to see the day when the various sensitivities surrounding policing issues had receded and then we would be able to return to this issue.

As your Lordships know, in August 2001 we published an updated implementation plan. On page 11 of that report, in accordance with Patten recommendations 27 and 28, we made it clear that we would consider whether there was a continuing need for the disqualification provision for independent members of DPPs and the functions of the Belfast subgroups. The plan made it plain that we would consider including any necessary amendments in the subsequent legislation.

As your Lordships all know, there was a review of policing arrangements. My colleague, Jane Kennedy, met a wide range of parties, including all political parties from Northern Ireland that are represented in this Parliament. We considered the appropriateness of the existing provisions. On 25th November last year the Government published, along with the draft contents of this Bill, some text for consideration. I know certainly that your Lordships appreciated the openness with which the Secretary of State had dealt with this matter. That is the short background.

I make it plain on behalf of the Government that we see a distinction between on the one hand presenting these clauses to Parliament today for inclusion as part of the legislation—I stress that as strongly as I can—and on the other hand bringing those clauses into force and effect. We did not wish to be in this position and we brought forward these changes with some reluctance. No one pretends that all the problems of Northern Ireland have been solved. However, over the past weeks and months there has been extremely important significant progress. I reiterate my continuing appreciation of the attitude that all noble Lords have adopted as we all work together cooperatively to see what improvements we may bring about genuinely and without partisan feeling.

As your Lordships know, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State had discussions at Hillsborough last month. Progress was made. Your Lordships also know that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will return to Hillsborough shortly. If the circumstances are right—we all hope and pray that they will be—they will publish proposals setting out the way forward, covering acts of completion as set out in the Prime Minister's Customs House speech.

Often your Lordships have pointed out to me that we have already had three policing Bills for Northern Ireland. I do not believe that anyone would wish to have a further Bill. But that is not the end of the story. I stress again, at the risk of being tedious, that the provisions dealing with the Belfast sub-groups, which we shall come to later, and these clauses cannot come into force and into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent. They will be commenced only by means of a subsequent order. Your Lordships know that that will have to be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. That is covered by Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. We shall envisage bringing forward the clauses only in the context of acts of completion. The Secretary of State was even more specific when he spoke last week saying that, They will not come into effect unless we have agreement that those acts of completion have been dealt with".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/2003; col. 361.] The Prime Minister has made it plain that acts of completion cannot and do not simply mean a statement or a declaration. They must mean giving up violence completely and totally, so that we can move forward with the democratic process, with all parties that wish to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules.

The affirmative resolution procedure provides an absolute guarantee that Parliament will have the final say as to when those provisions come into effect. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place said that both Houses would have the opportunity for a full debate should an order be brought forward. I give my personal guarantee that I shall make appropriate time available.

I want to comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 14B, 14C and 48A and, as it also deals with commencement, Amendment No. 15B. They are all attempts, in differing ways, to get at the same effect. Amendment No. 14B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, focuses on the issue of decommissioning. I respectfully suggest that it is not the only issue. The noble Lords. Lord Maginnis and Lord Rogan, in Amendments Nos. 14C and 15B approach it in a slightly different way and include a provision for the Secretary of State to add more elements to the list of necessary conditions. I say in a spirit of amity that I do not believe that those amendments are workable. I shall be happy to amplify that in due time should that be appropriate.

I understand the thinking behind the proposals. In the Government's view we really need a situation where the new world envisaged by the Belfast agreement works properly and as it should. When the institutions are working effectively, and when there is a degree of mutual trust and co-operation—not threats, fear and various intimidation—we shall need to consider the Secretary of State's proposal for Parliament to decide about commencement.

There will be an element of political judgment. That is inevitable and right in a democratic society. I have detected that there is concern in the House that the decision should not simply be left to the Secretary of State at that stage. That is the important point that favours the adoption of Amendment No. 48A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Glentoran. In order for devolution to be restored, trust must be restored, and restored sufficiently to enable all parties to feel able to come together once again in collective government.

My summary, by way of approval of Amendment No. 48A, is that it is—I mean this as a commendation and not as a criticism—a more subtle and sophisticated way of reaching a conclusion which we all favour.

Last week Jane Kennedy said, trust must reside not just in the Governments of Britain or Ireland. The parties to the arrangements that we want to reestablish in Northern Ireland will have to make those partnerships work. It is within that context that we would consider the changes being brought forward".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/3/03; col. 541.] Therefore, the effect of Amendment No. 48A would be to add another element to the judgment that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would have to make. For that reason, we are content to accept that amendment. I hope your Lordships will regard that as helpful.

Amendment No. 14 amends the disqualification provision set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the 2000 Act. At present the legislation provides that no one who has ever received a custodial sentence should be allowed to serve—I underline the following words—as an independent member of a DPP, no matter how long ago they were convicted or for what offence or whether or not the sentence was suspended. Our amendment changes that and would provide that a period of five years would have to elapse following a person's discharge in respect of an offence before he or she may be considered for appointment to a DPP.

If your Lordships accept them, those provisions would bring the rules for independent members into line with the arrangements that already apply to the political members of DPPs, who are drawn from local district councils. Under the terms of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, as amended, candidates wishing to stand for election as local councillors are ineligible for a period of five years following their discharge from an offence that attracted a custodial sentence.

Those arrangements, in this amendment, mirror for independent members what obtains for local authority members. Similar arrangements, of course, apply in relation to appointment to police authorities in England and Wales, where people are disqualified from being appointed as a member of a police authority if they have received, within five years before the date of the appointment, a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than three months.

The only change to the wording of this clause since it was first published as a text for consideration last November—I referred to that earlier—is to clarify the status of suspended sentences. In line with the equivalent electoral legislation, suspended sentences will not count for the purposes of the disqualification rules unless they are ordered to take effect. The suspension of the sentence will be subject to certain conditions set by the judge. If an individual breaks any of those conditions, the sentence ceases to be suspended and the disqualification provisions would come to bear.

Those changes would not mean that all ex-prisoners will automatically be suitable for appointment. The Northern Ireland Office Minister at the time of the passage of the 2000 Act through the Commons made it plain that there would be a number of important safeguards. Appointments will be made in accordance with a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State, on merit and by the cross-community Policing Board. The code of practice makes it clear that the board will write to the Chief Constable to ask for confirmation of the criminal records declared by applicants.

I hope that Amendment No. 13 finds favour with your Lordships because it has been raised, in one way or another, on many occasions. It would bring the arrangements for independent members into line with those that already apply for political members. Prospective independent members would be required, before their application can be considered by the Policing Board, to make a declaration against terrorism, in exactly the same terms as prospective local councillors are required to make. I stress that that has been raised on many occasions in the past, not Least by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and it is extremely important. I commend it to your Lordships.

There is an important sanction. If an independent member acts in breach or appears to have acted in breach of the declaration against terrorism, it is within the board's power, or the power of the council with the approval of the board, to remove that person from membership. There is a slight difference from the rules applying to councillors. In the case of local councillors, the case must go to the courts before they can be removed. Amendment No. 14 provides that the board—or the council with the approval of the board—should be able to make that decision. Of course, an aggrieved individual could seek a judicial review of the decision of the board or council of removal. The court, on judicial review, would have to come to its judicial conclusion about the reasonableness of that decision.

There is still scope for the board to take action in respect of political members since existing paragraph 7(1)(e) of Schedule 3 allows the board to remove someone because, he is…unable or unfit to discharge his functions". I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is in his place because I come to an important aspect of this legislation. By the courtesy of the noble Lord, I was given—yesterday evening—an early copy of the recommendations of his extremely highly regarded committee. That is what brought me to bring forward Amendments Nos. 48ZA and 49A in manuscript for which I apologise but it was necessary to act quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, spoke privately to me about his concerns. I know that a number of noble Lords around the House take a strict view, first, on the importance of the affirmative procedure; and, secondly, on the unfailing attention we have always given to recommendations of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. Therefore, I put down manuscript amendments in my name, having the authority of the Secretary of State to do so, to provide for an affirmative procedure to apply to an order that the Secretary of State might bring forward under the new clause inserted by government Amendment No. 22 which deals with the exceptional arrangements for recruitment of constables with specialist skills.

We shall come to Amendment No. 22 later in the day but I thought it appropriate and necessary for me to make those remarks at this stage. Amendment No. 22 provides that the exceptional arrangements will be available for two years starting from Royal Assent. The Secretary of State may extend the life of the provision on one occasion only to allow it to operate for a maximum period of four years. Because of the strong views that noble Lords have expressed about 50:50 recruitment, because of the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we have agreed that the affirmative approach is sensible and proportionate. I therefore commend those two amendments which I think will be unanimously welcomed.

I do not discount the proposition that the introduction of these changes will be difficult for many. In my opinion, it is undoubtedly the way forward. I have said previously to your Lordships that the more time that passes at present the more confident I become that normality and stability will be achieved for our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. I believe that there are sufficient, abundant safeguards.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, first, I still hate doing such business on a Thursday morning. At the same time, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal and his staff, the Clerks and others who have been so helpful in bringing together the manuscript amendments and other matters in a considerable hurry in the early hours of this morning. I agree with a great deal of what the noble and learned Lord said. It is true that the House and parties have worked together in a positive way over the past few weeks while the Bill has been going through your Lordships' House.

I do not intend to make a long speech. However, when I last spoke on the Bill I made one point very strongly. My honourable friend in another place, Quentin Davies, although taking rather more time, made the same point. We do not in principle object to the Weston Park clauses. We do not like them; we wish they did not have to be. However, if they are the price of Sinn Fein/IRA, or their scribe P O'Neil, coming to the table and delivering what the world knows they have to deliver in order to have peace and democracy in Northern Ireland, then so be it.

Her Majesty's Opposition, the Conservative Party, are in total disagreement with Her Majesty's Government over the timing in bringing forward those clauses. We do not consider that it is sensible to continue to meet Sinn Fein demands until they deliver. For those noble Lords who may not have done so, I have read Martin McGuinness's speech to the Ard Fheis. I have read much of Adams's speech to the same gathering. I also read in The Times Martin McGuinness's recent interview. Nowhere did I find any indication of any softening of the stance of Sinn Fein/IRA. The last time I spoke from this Dispatch Box I admitted to being optimistic; perhaps we were moving forward. I believed that. But I was very disappointed by the speeches of Martin McGuinness.

In practical terms, I also thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting the Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 48A to which I put my name. It is extremely helpful. I know that David Trimble is not happy about it; he rang me. However, I feel happier with that than with nothing. But I stress that it is very much second best. I wish to demonstrate that that is how the Opposition feel about these clauses. I shall seek to divide the House on one, two or perhaps three amendments. How we accomplish that will be fairly complex. I am not certain when I say that I beg to take the opinion of the House but I wish to do so when appropriate on Amendment No. 14A.

If something exciting happens, or is due to happen, in the near future—that is, before Easter—I shall have been proved wrong in what I have been saying and I shall be delighted. I believe that Her Majesty's Government should not be giving anything at all to Sinn Fein/IRA until they deliver.

Lord Smith of Clifton

My Lords, I, too, thank the Leader of the House, his staff and the Clerks for assisting us with a very tricky piece of legislation. I, too, am not confident that I shall be able to follow the procedures as well as I would have wished.

We shall be generally supportive of the Government with regard to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 48ZA, and so on. The noble Lords, Lord Rogan, and Lord Maginnis, have adopted the wording of an amendment I tabled earlier and subsequently withdrew in terms of Amendment No. 48A which provides a neater formulation. I echo the view of the Leader of the House. At this time, before the package is announced from the two governments in a week or two's time, we must proceed as though things will lead to a restoration of devolution and normality. That is what we are about today.

I acknowledge that Amendment No. 14C, tabled by the Unionists, which details acts of completion, describes the actions that we would regard as the minimum criteria for accepting that acts of completion had occurred. We still need to see that those things have happened; our withdrawal of the amendment in no way undermines our conviction that those actions from the paramilitaries are fundamentally necessary.

However, it is not just the Secretary of State and the political parties here in Westminster that must be satisfied by the acts of completion but, more importantly, the political parties in Northern Ireland. That is why we withdrew our earlier amendment and tabled Amendment No. 48A instead. Following the talks at Hillsborough, the parties must go forward together. That is an imperative. The details of the package will be published shortly. Everyone will know where they stand. Each piece of the package will he considered in the context of the other pieces.

Critical to that is movement on the part of the paramilitaries, but the parties will have to decide whether they can accept the whole package and move forward together, instead of cherry picking. They will have to decide how important are the institutions of government to Northern Ireland. For far too long and on too many occasions, Northern Ireland has had help from outside in order to move on—from the Governments in Westminster and Dublin; from Senator George Mitchell; from President Clinton; and from General de Chastelain. If we can rely on press reports about the package to be published, there will now be an outside body to keep an eye on the parties and ensure that they are all behaving themselves and living up to their responsibilities under the Good Friday agreement.

All those involved in the peace process have worked tirelessly, and we deeply appreciate the time and effort that they have spent on Northern Ireland, but there comes a time when the political parties in Northern Ireland must themselves take responsibility for the peace process. They must decide whether to move forward together or whether to allow the process to stagnate. They must all take steps to demonstrate that they are acting in good faith and do enough to ensure that that good faith is accepted by others involved in the process.

12.30 p.m.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass

My Lords, on the first day in Grand Committee, I recall raising the issue of the text for consideration. I was then extremely worried about that text and the concessions that it provided for those who were—and still are—not unequivocally committed to the peace process. I was worried that the text for consideration would be introduced in another place and that we would not have an opportunity fully to discuss the matters arising therefrom. I was assured by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal that we would have the opportunity fully to discuss those matters. Whatever was the intention, that is not how matters are working out in effect.

The Bill as it now appears before us has increased from a 28 to a 41-clause Bill. That is the increase in size since 5th December last year. As amendments show, the Government are introducing a further six new clauses and two new schedules. In the time allocated, Part 2 was virtually unconsidered in your Lordships' House; it was considered only briefly on Report. The schedules were not considered again. In another place, Part 2 and the schedules were raced through without sufficient scrutiny.

We have here 13 clauses and three schedules that have been virtually unconsidered. That must be of considerable concern for those who recognise the sensitivity of the situation in Northern Ireland. We understand that the Bill, almost in its entirety, is the product of the Government's guarantees and promises, not only to the Social Democratic and Labour Patty but specifically to Sinn Fein, at the Weston Park conference. It derives from elements of that conference to which my party was not given access—nor, indeed, were we made aware of the promises that the Government were making.

Whereas we have some assurances that acts of completion will be required before many of the less palatable aspects of the Bill are implemented, I am not terribly sure about those guarantees. Especially in another place, acts of completion have been described as "processes of acts of completion" or as "in the context of acts of completion". For us to get the sort of guarantee that we require, we need to be told that what is meant by those expressions is "subsequent to acts of completion"; otherwise, we believe that there will be a rush towards handing further concessions to Sinn Fein in the hope that this, that or the next concession will drive the water over the dam.

The reality is that within the past month, there have been significant finds of new Provisional IRA arms, explosives and explosive devices—new material in hides in Belfast. We have had a period in which the IRA has engaged in the most sinister spying on Members of Parliament, prison officers and police. It has happened so often during the past 30 years that I seldom comment on it, but just this week I have been given information that the IRA is in possession of yet more information about me. I often wonder why that is necessary; I live a fairly open life. None the less, I draw attention to that simply to demonstrate the type of people with whom we hope to deal.

I am enough of a democrat—my party is sufficiently democratic—to accept that when there are acts of completion, things will be different. I may not like some things that happen. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal referred to what happens in England and Wales. Could he illustrate the point by telling us the number of murderers, people convicted of fraud or hooligans—similar to those that we saw outside the football match last evening—who become members of police boards or district police partnerships? The noble and learned Lord knows that that is not a meaningful illustration of what could happen in Northern Ireland, where the political pressures and the need to make political points are such that we will be inundated with applications, should the concessions be made, from the most despicable individuals—the scum of our society, to put it bluntly.

The reciprocal of that must be to ask whether ordinary, decent, law-abiding members of our community will feel it worthwhile risking their safety by serving on police boards or district police partnerships. Those are some of the questions that need to be posed and, more importantly, answered by the noble and learned Lord.

Perhaps I am jumping ahead when I refer to the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats that has the agreement of the Conservatives in this House but I wonder whether it is recognised that the amendment puts so much pressure on Ulster Unionists in terms of reestablishing the Assembly. Unless we receive, not guarantees set about by process of, or in the context of, but unequivocal guarantees, we shall have to ask whether we can risk re-establishing the Assembly—and I have ever in my political life been an advocate of devolved and responsibility-sharing government—insofar as it may lead automatically to the most undesirable people becoming involved at the very heart of law and order. For them to become involved at the heart of order endangers not only our police, whom we send out to protect society, but the whole fabric of our society and the integrity of the democratic process in Northern Ireland.

Those are the serious issues that cannot be fully dealt with in the time we have available to discuss the multitude of amendments and business being considered here today. I await with interest to hear how the noble and learned Lord can reassure me and my party on this issue.

12.45 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Clifton, for their remarks at the outset of their speeches when they paid tribute to my private office—which is in fact a single person, Nicki Daniels. There is no Northern Ireland secretariat or Minister attached to the House of Lords, so Nicki Daniels has to do an enormous amount of work—always courteously, cheerfully and efficiently. I am also very grateful for what was said about the officials who had to work very very late last night in seeing to and dealing with amendments of which they were not in possession until well after 8 o'clock in the evening. We should not expect people who are public servants to work in those circumstances.

I want to go to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, a moment ago. There is no constraint at all on time. Starting at 11 o'clock on a Thursday, we have ample time to discuss all the issues. I have always been able to provide appropriate, decent time for all our considerations.

Let us go to the fundamentals. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said that no concessions must be made to Sinn Fein/IRA. Absolutely. And they are not. The commencement order was written in at the specific initiative of the Secretary of State to meet those concerns. I repeat: Royal Assent does not bring about even the possibility of the Secretary of State taking action. Then it requires the affirmative procedure to be gone through. I have already assured your Lordships that we will have appropriate time to discuss matters at that stage.

We need to remember this in relation to the mechanism provided by the amendments: can the Secretary of State come to his initial conclusion by way of very fine judgment that it is appropriate to bring in the commencement order? If yes, he has to justify that to both Houses. He knows perfectly well—I say this respectfully to the Commons—that the scrutiny in this House will certainly be informed and detailed, as it always has been. At that stage, we shall have to come to our conclusions as to whether or not his political judgment was correct. I repeat, no concessions have been made.

The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked—he may know the answer, because he frequently does when he teases me—how many murderers, fraudsters or hooligans serve on British police authorities. He normally takes the police authority for Surrey. I do not know why we always rely on Surrey for these disagreeable examples. The answer is, probably very few—if any. My proposition was not that such people sit on police authorities but that they have the opportunity to do so, should they be qualified—even though they have previous convictions.

The question resolves itself to these propositions. Do we want to move forward? Are we able to believe that in the not-too-distant future the opportunity will be there? If the answer to those questions is yes, we need to give this power—and it is only a prospective power—for the Secretary of State to adopt.

I shall deal specifically with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, about pressures on the Ulster Unionists if the Smith-Glentoran amendment were carried. It is not pressure on the Unionists. It is giving them and other political parties power and influence about a very significant decision. That is why I ventured to suggest earlier that Amendment No. 48A is very subtle and sophisticated, because it gives power and influence to those parties who, if they do not feel content, will not join in with the re-establishment of the suspended institutions.

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that he has spent a very long life in politics supporting devolved and responsible institutions. We are here providing for the possibility that responsibility may be more widely shared—but only on the basis of demonstrated fact.

On Question, Motion agreed to.