The alternative Unionists. I hope that they also respect fundamental human rights. It is a curiosity to me that the Bill purports to extend the powers of the NIHRC. I have already mentioned the Secretary of State’s warm and glowing praise for the ““major role”” of the current commission. The Government have given the impression through the Secretary of State that they pay great attention to respect for human rights. That being the case, may I draw attention to the fact that it takes five pages in the explanatory notes alone to explain it? There is a heading of ““European Convention on Human Rights”” on page 25, and the section continues on pages 26, 27, 28 and 29 through to page 30. I have never seen the like before on any explanatory notes, where it takes five pages to justify how the Bill has sailed so close to the wind in terms of compatibility with the European convention on human rights.
On the one hand, the Bill seems to say that it is right to increase the powers of the NIHRC because the Government believe that it is a really important thing to do. On the other hand, the Government have had to justify how what most of the Bill does is compatible—in respect of arrest, detention and the very serious ouster provision in clause 7—with the European convention. I do not think that I have ever seen an ouster clause that makes it so explicit on the face of a Bill that the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply. I am talking about clause 7; I have not made it up; I am reading it.
As I said, when I read the Bill, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. Clause 7(3) says:"““Section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act of 1998… is subject to subsections (1) and (2).””"
In other words, the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions is beyond challenge: unless there is ““dishonesty or bad faith””, it cannot be challenged at all. We have thus made part of our Human Rights Act—I paid tribute to the Labour Government for introducing it into the United Kingdom and extending it to Northern Ireland—subservient to a discretion exercised by the DPP. That is an extraordinary change for the Government now to introduce. In the Minister’s winding-up speech, will he comment on whether the Lord Chancellor or, indeed, the Attorney-General were consulted on that change? What were their views on clause 7, particularly subsection (3)?
Finally, on the increased powers given to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, many Members representing English, Scottish and Welsh constituencies will, like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), be rather bemused and perhaps concerned when they read the Bill. Most right hon. and hon. Members will be hard pushed to name any individual member of that commission, but, courtesy of the Bill going through this evening—I take it that no one is going to vote against it, but I hope that we can get it changed and improved in Committee—the NIHRC will be able to call for documents and take oral evidence from people within constituencies outside Northern Ireland. If that is the case, perhaps the Government could pay some attention to it before Committee stage, as the Bill provides a clear vehicle for it.
The Bill makes provision for increased powers for the chief inspector of criminal justice—Kit Chivers, who does a tremendously good job. He is one of my constituents, but apart from that, his office of the criminal justice inspectorate does an enormously good job. The Bill will extend his remit to the Northern Ireland Court Service.
The Minister and his colleagues might well bear something in mind if people are to have confidence in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. One section of the community—the nationalist and republican section, I am sorry to say—has confidence in the commission, but the Minister will be well aware from the comments that have been made by the DUP Members who have spoken at length this evening that that confidence is not shared across the Unionist community. The Minister may well like to take on board the suggestion that, if the commission’s increased powers involve any matter of import in the criminal justice system in determining whether there are abuses of human rights, the chief inspector of criminal justice’s jurisdiction should also be extended to cover the commission.
Before the Minister tells me that the commission is an independent statutory body, I will remind him that the police ombudsman’s office is also an independent statutory body, but it comes within the remit of the chief inspector of criminal justice. Therefore, to be consistent and logical—I know that that is difficult for the Northern Ireland Office, but I wish that it was logical—the inspection format of the chief inspector should be extended to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. With that, I will wish everyone a happy Christmas.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lady Hermon
(Ulster Unionist 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 c960-1 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:48:03 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365518
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365518
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_365518