Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

From my perspective, I hope that the Human Rights Commission will undertake what I term thematic examinations of human rights issues, which may involve visits to and investigations of places of detention. It may wish to have access to those places of detention once it has given a clear indication of the remit of the investigation and has agreed its time scale and format. I am not going to second-guess what the commission may wish to examine, but it could certainly look at human rights issues across government, and those may involve its having access to places of detention. I am trying to ensure that there is guidance to limit the investigatory powers so that the impact they have on the Northern Ireland Prison Service or places of detention is reasonable. The amendments would remove those limitations, but the limitations are fair and proper in the light of concerns expressed. With such wide-ranging powers come appropriate measures necessary to ensure that they are used properly. I think that we have got the measures on inspection of places of detention right. There is an appeals process, which will allow public authorities an opportunity to argue that an investigation is unreasonable or unnecessary. That is a proportionate measure, given the commission’s powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, it parallels the processes that apply to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in Great Britain. The appeals process is balanced by the opportunity that the commission will have to appeal to the courts if public authorities do not comply with its powers. The Bill creates new offences for failure to comply. Those are subject to fines of up to £5,000. I accept again that my hon. Friend does not think that that is a sufficient deterrent, but I think that it is appropriate punishment for that level of offence. There are also necessary restrictions on the commission which prevent it from compelling information that would prejudice national security or reveal the reasons for prosecution decisions. Amendment No. 17 would remove an important restriction. It ensures that recipients of notices are not caught by conflicting duties arising from different Acts. The potential for such conflict is real. Without the current restriction, it would be possible for a notice to require the production of information that is prohibited under, for example, the Data Protection Act 1998. There are conflicting legislative demands on individuals and organisations. Where Parliament has decided to restrict the disclosure of information in another Act, it is right that the Bill should recognise that fact. I touched on amendments Nos. 19 and 23 with regard to the maximum fine of £5,000. The level of punishment for that criminal offence is the same as is applied to those who have unreasonably failed to accede to a request for information from the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. As with the Great Britain commission, the sanction will prevent undue impediment to investigations. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down spoke to amendment No. 20, which would remove the exemption for prosecution decisions. The exemption is necessary to ensure that decisions are taken independently on the merits of a case. It is well established that prosecution decisions are exempt from equality investigations. Clause 14(10) simply extends that existing situation to human rights investigations. The Public Prosecution Service will not be exempt from the commissioners’ power to investigate, only the prosecution decisions accordingly. Amendment No. 21 would remove the exemption for national security issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle knows the answer to this, but I want to put the Government’s view on the record. The national security exemptions in the Bill mirror provisions for Great Britain in the Equality Act 2006. It is important that national security interests are protected throughout the UK, and I am not willing to offer less protection for Northern Ireland than would be the case elsewhere in the UK. Amendment No. 22 challenges the notice to be given by the Human Rights Commission before any investigation into a place of detention can be undertaken. Again, we have put that in place so that there is an opportunity, first for the terms of reference for the investigation to be determined, and secondly, for the time scale and points of contact of that investigation to be agreed. However, once the 15-day notice is up and the terms of reference have been agreed, the commission may visit on a number of occasions without prior notice being given to those places of detention. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, a number of bodies already have the power to take action immediately in the event of any concerns arising. For example, the prisons ombudsman, the criminal justice inspectorate, the prison monitoring boards, and indeed the police, can take action in those circumstances. We want to give the Human Rights Commission the opportunity to undertake thematic investigations into human rights issues. Those might require visits and access to a place of detention, but we have to ensure that that is not done if there is duplication with existing bodies, as the hon. Gentleman said, or if there is the potential for the investigation to disrupt the normal day-to-day work of the organisation that is being investigated.