My Lords, I will deal first with Amendment 1. I support this probing amendment. That is not necessarily to make a judgment that what is in place at present is insufficient, but it is probing to establish whether what is placed in the legislation is comprehensive enough and whether it covers all the situations. There can be nothing worse than finding that there are inadvertent consequences and that, through a degree of misunderstanding or because we have not been exacting enough, some people are excluded wrongly, or perhaps even that the net is drawn too widely on other occasions. As I said, I draw no conclusions as to whether that is the case at present but I will listen with care to the answers given by the Minister on that.
To take the last point on Amendment 147, I have some sympathy for the case that the noble Lord put forward. However, I have some level of reservation. It is undoubtedly an investigation into one of the most horrendous series of murders that have taken place; they were horrific, and it is correct that they should be condemned. Where I have a little reservation in perhaps suggesting that the whole Bill is flawed is that if we start looking at individual operations, however well advanced, and singling them out for some level of exemption, that can create a concern that other areas
of investigation into horrendous murders which are needed are not also covered. That is my concern about Amendment 147.
On Amendment 52, again, I look forward to what the Minister will say on that. I have some reservations about it. At the moment, there is a five-year period in which there is an opportunity for a request to be made. It is hard to see in genuine cases why a family would not make that within the five-year period, so I am not clear why this is necessary. Indeed, are we shifting the goalposts by making this entirely open-ended in terms of making the request? Therefore, at this stage I am certainly sceptical about that but I look forward to what will be said in connection with it.
I support the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in Amendment 63. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, made the point that there is a concern about the inadequacy of some investigations. I take that very much on board. However, what the noble Baroness says is proportionate, fair and practical. I say that because Amendment 63 would take into account what previous investigations had taken place. Surely the aim of the investigations in review is to bring everything up to the same level. If work has already been done, that should be built on where necessary. We should not look to duplicate work; that is from a practical point of view because there is a danger of the level of funding becoming open-ended to the extent that it is simply unaffordable.
We also need equality of treatment. There would be a concern that if we simply disregarded an investigation —indeed, if we have investigation after investigation in some cases—then some high-profile cases in which people are able to shout the loudest may go to the front of the queue and get an additional level of investigation, rather than there being equality of treatment for victims.
Amendment 63 has been carefully worded. It does not say that a previous investigation would preclude a review or an investigation. It would place the onus on the Chief Commissioner to take account of what has happened before. In many cases, particularly in the early days of the Troubles, that investigation might well have been inadequate. What information is available should be a key factor in determining the level of work that must go into an individual case. What is there is balanced.
The proposed opposition to Clause 7 standing part of the Bill is also in this group. I again have considerable sympathy for what has been put forward. Undoubtedly, we must ensure that the net for what evidence is inadmissible to the courts is not thrown too wide. There is a concern that what is presently within Clause 7 is not fit for purpose and, at the very least, creates elements where clarity is needed. For example, it is not clear in what circumstances an applicant for immunity would provide information that is not connected with the application process. Perhaps the Minister can expand on this. Separately, Clause 7(3)(b) has the effect of making material that is later obtained “as a result” of material provided by the applicant inadmissible. That seems quite tenuous. We must ensure that the inadmissibility net is not any wider than it needs to be.
There are considerable concerns over Clause 7. I know that the Government are proposing some changes to it but again, there is a lack of clarity. For example,
there is an interaction between admissibility of material, as mentioned in Clause 7, and Clause 23, on the provision of information to prosecutors. That needs to be clarified. If Clause 7 was to remain within the legislation, the Minister must clarify what impact Clause 23 has on Clause 7. Without such clarification, there would be a strong case at least for re-examination of what is in Clause 7, and perhaps for exclusion altogether.