Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

The amendments would ensure that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission can carry out its functions properly, with due process and an ability to penetrate some of the darker matters that might arise during its investigations. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State stated that"““the commission has welcomed the additional powers that””" the Bill"““provides. It asked for them and I am providing them, so of course it is pleased.””—[Official Report, 13 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 904.]" However, hon. Members who received a briefing from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission knows that it sets out the Commission’s actual attitude and position. It states:"““The Commission believes that the Bill has serious defects in terms of the protection of human rights. In some respects the Bill actually diminishes the Commission’s current level of independence, and imposes new and onerous obligations.””" My colleagues and I tabled the amendments to try to tackle that problem. Amendment No. 17 deals with a simple concern. Clause 14 inserts a new section 69A into the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The amendment would prevent the Commission from compelling someone to give information that would be unlawfully disclosed"““by virtue of an enactment””." We disagree with that restriction. Although it is found in the Equality Act 2006, which covers England and Wales, it has no Northern Ireland equivalent. For example, such a restriction is not found in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, so there is no similar restriction on the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland when conducting fair employment investigations. Section 44 of the 1998 Act gives Assembly Committees the power to call persons and papers. The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and associated legislation does not restrict the Policing Board in such a way in its inquiries. Those are but a few examples to illustrate the premise that such restrictions have no relevance—or should have none—in Northern Ireland. In all those cases, the key restriction, which is sufficient, is that a person cannot be compelled to produce documents that the High Court could not compel him to produce. That is more than sufficient to protect the public interest. By going further and preventing the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission from looking into anything that may not be given out under an enactment we could seriously impede the commission’s investigative powers. Amendment No. 17 was tabled for those reasons. The purpose of amendment No. 18 is to strengthen the investigative powers of the HRC. Proposed new section 69A (5) would allow any person who had a notice served on him to produce papers or information or evidence to apply to the court and argue that it was ““unnecessary”” to do so, or the matter had already been sufficiently investigated or was ““unreasonable”” or beyond the terms of reference of the investigation. The HRC is already subject to judicial review and if it is doing something that is unreasonable or irrational, it can successfully be reviewed on those grounds in the same way as any other body with investigative powers in the north can be reviewed. The ability to go to the county court, which is unique to Northern Ireland, is therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, the question of whether the subject is sufficiently investigated is a matter for the commission to resolve with other bodies through agreed memorandums of understanding or protocols. Again, this provision, although it may appear in the Equality Act 2006, is unprecedented in Northern Ireland terms and undesirable in policy terms. Finally, in respect of amendment No. 18, if the NIHRC exceeds its terms of reference, that could also be a matter to be resolved by way of judicial review. As the Bill stands, the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot be the subject of a notice to hand over documents, information or papers, so amendment No. 20 is designed to address that issue. Given the controversy surrounding the handling of a number of cases by the DPP’s office, it is only right that it can be investigated. There is a precedent for having inquiries into the DPP. For example, the Macpherson inquiry into the killing of Stephen Lawrence was able to investigate the DPP’s office and the inquiry report found that it was essential to examine the DPP’s handling of the case. By contrast, in Northern Ireland, there were serious allegations of police collusion surrounding the murder of Robert Hamill—and it was every bit as serious, if not more disturbing—yet so far the Government have not agreed that the DPP should be examined, despite the fact that the DPP office played a very important role in the overall handling of the case. Similar issues arise in respect of the first trial of Ulster Defence Association man Billy Stobie, who was found in possession of weapons, but after he threatened to reveal that he was an informer and warned his handlers that a man was about to be murdered using a weapon that he had supplied to the UDA, the charges were dropped without question. That should be investigated. Surely it must be subject to some sort of review. No explanation was ever given to the people involved for that particular decision. I refer, of course, to the murder of Pat Finucane. Given all those serious questions, it is only right and desirable that the Human Rights Commission should have the powers to investigate the Public Prosecution Service. The commission has needed to act in those controversial cases, but many victims of ordinary crime will feel that their rights have been violated at various times. Giving the HRC the power would be an important reassurance that the Public Prosecution Service has entered a new era of accountability, just as the Police Service of Northern Ireland now has a new dispensation and regime. That is why we propose amendment No. 20. I will not deal with amendments Nos. 19 or 21, 22 and 23, because I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and deal with those proposals. In general, however, I hope that all our amendments in this group will find some resonance with the Minister. If the Government do not feel able to respond immediately, I believe that these proposals are worthy of further consideration and I like to think that Ministers will take our comments into account, reflect on them and have a further review.