Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

Unlike the Minister, I have tried to use the Freedom of Information Act and he may not realise that you have to live a long time in order to get what you seek. The procedures are so bureaucratic that it may be a year or two before you get the result. So the idea of a public authority having to go through the Freedom of Information Act to get information so that it can carry out an effective investigation into a matter of compelling public importance is the kind of thing on which Franz Kafka wrote in his novels about Czechoslovakia in the inter-war years, and that does not seem a very straightforward or sensible remedy. The remedy put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, seems to be a perfectly sensible way of dealing with this matter, but it has not been addressed as such by the Minister. My solution, which is no doubt imperfect, is to make it clear in Clause 19(1) that the powers would cover matters arising on or after 1 August or situations that would, "““come into or remain in existence, on or after””." That is simply a device to deal with a continuing situation. But of course it does not deal with the situation in Clause 19(2), which concerns the absolute bar on requiring information to be provided if it is ““recorded before that date””. Although I do not have an amendment on it today, my solution to that would be to say that that is typically a matter where you can trust the court. The commission could apply to the court for permission, as is the case with subpoena powers, to obtain information on showing that it was appropriate and necessary to provide that information for the effective conduct of the investigation. That could be dealt with by a county court judge in the same way as subpoena powers. That would then give some flexibility. I think that everyone who has spoken in this debate agrees that there is a need for flexibility. Even the Minister half conceded that, but he said that the Freedom of Information Act should be used to deal with it. His point about information already being in the public domain because, being a scandal, it will already have been investigated by someone else is not a very good one, because we are not dealing with matters that are already in the public domain—the power would not be necessary if they were. We are dealing only with the exceptional case where relevant documents are needed for an effective investigation and which relates to a situation which continues from before 1 August into the present. I very much hope that, especially if the Government can do our work for us, one way or another they can find a form of words that will include judicial control and effective safeguards to avoid abuse. Having said that, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 32 to 34 not moved.] Clause 19 agreed to. Clause 20 [Stop and question]: