This morning, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissioners were here in the Palace of Westminster to present to interested Members of Parliament and Peers the commission’s bill of rights for Northern Ireland. This bill of rights has a history which goes back to the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement, as it is better known—and to Section 69(7) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The commissioners explained that the bill of rights is particularly important to them because, in the aftermath of the Troubles which they experienced for so long, they feel that rights, equality of rights and proper treatment are crucial, especially in an atmosphere where distrust quickly arises in the light of difficult issues. They have done some terrific work on the bill, which we should soon be debating in this place, and I hope the Government will give it a fair wind. Meanwhile, however, they have no bill of rights and it is up to us to ensure that any legislation we pass is as fair to Northern Ireland as it is to the rest of the United Kingdom. That brings me to the amendment.
We have concerns that Northern Ireland is being treated somewhat differently. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has consistently raised concerns about powers which are properly the role of police officers being delegated to UKBA officers. The commission has concerns about the increasing use and introduction into Northern Ireland of a civilian force that is engaging in police work but which is currently without the same standards, training or accountability as PSNI officers.
As the Committee will be aware, there is a particular policing context within Northern Ireland, including contexts for human rights compliance. As I said, trust takes a long time to build up and is easily lost. The role of the police ombudsman in relation to immigration officers is the subject of ongoing reviews. As far as we are aware those reviews have not yet been concluded, and I would be grateful if the Minister could shed any light on the progress.
In 2007, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, in its response to the consultation on the IPCC oversight of Border and Immigration Agency incidents and complaints, raised concerns that the mechanism for individual complaints to be heard and dealt with, that of the IPCC, did not extend to Northern Ireland. It said: "““The Commission notes that the oversight of the IPCC does not extend to Northern Ireland and that according to the consultation paper ‘any cross border complaints will be dealt with under agreements with the relevant authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland’ (‘cross border’ in this context meaning as between the UK jurisdictions)””—"
not, as we usually think of in Ireland, between the north and the south. "““The cross border activity of BIA is in fact significant, with individuals routinely being transported from Northern Ireland to Dungavel Removal Centre in Scotland and then on to removal centres in England. The need for agreements with the relevant agency in Northern Ireland therefore is a very real and pressing one””."
It is not just a hypothetical issue.
The policing divisions of the Northern Ireland Office were also consulting in 2007 on the recommendations made by the police ombudsman of Northern Ireland. That paper states: "““The Police Ombudsman has been asked to take responsibility for the investigation of serious criminal complaints against the staff of the Immigration Service and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs””."
The paper goes on to explain that negotiations were under way to identify the legislative changes necessary to enable the Police Ombudsman to carry out that role. Will the Minister tell the House of progress made in those negotiations?
There seems to be a discrepancy between what is being proposed for the police ombudsman and what has been agreed for the IPCC. The ombudsman’s oversight seems to be restricted to ““serious criminal complaints””, implying that only complaints alleging serious crimes committed by immigrations could fall to be investigated by the police ombudsman. Given what the Government have said about ad hoc immigration checks being carried out on the land border, this could raise serious concerns. As there are no proposals in the Bill regarding the oversight of immigration officers in Northern Ireland, we are deeply concerned that there could be a significant period during which protections were afforded to individuals in England and Wales but not in Northern Ireland. I am sure the Minister will agree that that is not a satisfactory situation, and it could potentially engage Article 14 of the ECHR prohibiting discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights. I beg to move.
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 February 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c298-9 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:39:54 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_531857
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_531857
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_531857