I thank the Minister for that attempt to clarify. I hope that he can point us, either now or in future, to exactly where the Bill makes that very precise clarification. I see it nowhere in the Bill. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire touched on just how sweeping the conditions are: to exercise the power—to say, ““Diplock it will be””—the DPP simply has to decide that there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired. There need not be a substantial risk or a serious risk. There is absolutely no test or qualification. There need only be a risk, and no one can test or ask on what that risk is based.
From what we are hearing from Ministers, it seems that that risk can be based simply on a whisper coming from the intelligence services to say, ““This guy is one of ours,”” or ““Complications could emerge, so this is what we want done.”” That is not a legitimate interpretation of a risk to the administration of justice, so the Secretary of State’s and the Minister’s attempts on the issue give us more cause for concern. Let us remember that they introduced national security in relation to these powers. As I indicated earlier, I believe that they have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag about what is really motivating these powers.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Mark Durkan
(Social Democratic & Labour Party)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 13 December 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
454 c923 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:48:15 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365428
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365428
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365428