Clause
14
Investigations:
evidence
Paul
Goggins:
On a point of order, Mrs. Anderson. I
seek your guidance. If the Committee wishes to explore or to have an
explanation of an amendment tabled by an hon. Member who is not
present, is it normal for an explanation to be given, or do we move to
the next
business?
The
Chairman:
The normal procedure is to move to the next
business. If an amendment is not moved, it is not possible to debate
it.
Dr.
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): On a point of order,
Mrs. Anderson. Would it assist the Committee if I moved
amendment No. 41 to enable it to be
debated?
The
Chairman:
It is possible for the Minister to refer to the
amendment on clause stand part, and I am sure that he would be happy
with
that.
Mr.
Robertson:
I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
clause 14, page 11, line 21, at
end insert
‘,
and
(c) establishes that it has not been
investigated by another person because it has been determined that it
most properly falls to the Commission to carry out such an
investigation.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 16, in
clause 14, page 11, line 21, at
end insert—
‘(4A) The
Commission shall give a reason for the issuing of the notice to the
person to whom it is issued at the point of issuing
it.’.
No.
42, in
clause 14, page 11, line 22, leave
out subsection
(5).
No. 44, in
clause 14, page 12, line 1, leave
out subsection
(10).
Mr.
Robertson:
As I said briefly during the short debate on
the previous clause, I have one or two concerns about the extension of
the commission’s powers, to which the hon. Member for North Down
referred. It already has considerable powers under section 69(8) of the
Northern Ireland Act 1998 which
states:
“For
the purpose of exercising its functions under this section the
Commission may conduct such investigations as it considers necessary or
expedient.”
That is a wide-ranging power and the
clause extends it.
My
concern is that under clause 13(2)(c)
“the Commission may act only if
there is or would be one or more victims of the unlawful
act”.
The word
“unlawful” prompted me to move the amendment, because if
there is an unlawful act, why would it not be more properly
investigated by other authorities?
Amendment No. 15 would require
the commission to establish that there has been no investigation by
another person because it has been determined that it most properly
falls to the Commission to carry out such an
investigation.
Under
amendment No. 16,
“The Commission shall
give a reason for the issuing of the notice to the person to whom it is
issued at the point of issuing
it.”
I am asking the
Minister to explain why an unlawful act would be investigated by the
commission. Surely other bodies might more properly investigate
such an act.
Paul
Goggins:
I suspect that there is little difference on this
issue between ourselves and those on the Opposition Front Bench. The
hon. Gentleman is right that, in practice, the commission should work
with other appropriate bodies to determine the appropriate body to
pursue a particular investigation. Working arrangements are already in
place between the commission and similar investigatory bodies. That
matter is best dealt with by memorandums of understanding rather than
the Bill.
The
amendment takes us a shade too far. These investigations and the kinds
of issue that the commission will examine are necessarily complex.
While we would expect agreement between the relevant bodies as to which
was the appropriate one to pursue a particular case, the commission
might believe that another body has failed in its duties by not
pursuing a particular inquiry. We want to leave in place the power for
the commission to pursue such an investigation if it so decides. The
normal procedure that we would expect is that when a complaint is made,
consideration would be given as to the appropriate body. Sometimes
investigations would be carried out jointly between two or more bodies.
The commission might make a considered judgment that another
investigatory body ought to have conducted an investigation and has not
done so, and therefore we wish to leave the power in the Bill for the
commission to follow that through.
Lady
Hermon:
I am enormously concerned about what the Minister
has just said. There are other investigatory bodies in Northern
Ireland, such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Police
Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Is the Minister telling the Committee
that if the Human Rights Commission, under clause 14(4), which is being
called into question by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, takes into its
head that the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland have
not investigated a matter sufficiently, it can have a second bite of
the cherry? Police officers on the ground would not be amused or
entertained by that idea.
Paul
Goggins:
The powers in the Bill would allow that to
happen. The hon. Lady is assiduous, so she will have looked elsewhere
in the Bill and seen that terms of reference have to be given for an
investigation. There is also an opportunity for the subject of the
investigation to appeal against the decision to the county court.
Safeguards are in place for the person who is to be investigated. For
example, if the Human Rights Commission wishes to enter a place of
detention, there can be an appeal. The commission could not act
recklessly, but we want to leave in place the power for it to conduct
an investigation if it believes that other investigatory bodies have
not carried out what it regards as their
duty.
Mr.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Anderson. Will
the Minister clarify a point? If the police had investigated and had
made a decision that the commission does not agree with, could that be
investigated or would that decision be
final?
Paul
Goggins:
If a complaint is made and the commission judges
that another body ought to have conducted an investigation and has not
done so, it can carry out that investigation. The Bill empowers it to
do so. The hon. Lady praised the commission for some of the work that
it has done in recent years and, on Second Reading, she made some
powerful arguments in that regard. The commission is a responsible body
that behaves responsibly, and it is given these powers so that it can
carry out its
work.
9.30
am
For the most
part, we expect either that another body will carry out the
investigation, that it will be done jointly, or that the Human Rights
Commission will be the most appropriate body to do it, but we leave the
powers in place because they are
important.
Lady
Hermon:
The Minister has taken the wind out of my sails by
confirming my worst fears about what we are doing. He knows perfectly
well that the historical inquiries team was set up at great
expense—it cost millions of pounds—to investigate the
3,000 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland. There is also a commission
looking into the disappeared—those ghastly, grisly murders by
the IRA in which the bodies were not returned to the families. Is he
confirming that if the Human Rights Commission decides that
anyone—the police ombudsman, the historical inquiries team or
the PSNI—has not investigated a matter sufficiently, it can
reopen the inquiry, so that we end up with a truth commission by
another name? Is that really what we will get from this
provision?
Paul
Goggins:
I honestly believe that the hon. Lady is
unnecessarily concerned. There are, as she says, many other oversight
bodies in Northern Ireland, such as the police ombudsman’s
office and the historical inquiries team within the PSNI. If one of
those bodies undertook an extensive investigation into a complaint and
formed a conclusion, that investigation would have been carried out. If
the investigation has been carried out, then it has been done. It is
only if the investigation
has not been carried out and the Human Rights Commission believes that
it should have been that it has the power to do so.
I hope that that clarifies the
matter and addresses her concerns. There is no opportunity for the
commission endlessly to reopen investigations that have been carried
out. If other oversight bodies have conducted investigations, they have
fulfilled their obligations. It is only if they have not carried out an
investigation that the commission may
act.
Sammy
Wilson:
The Minister says that the measure applies only if
an investigation has not already been carried out, but that is not
indicated in the clause. We know from experience in Northern Ireland
that even when there have been extensive police investigations into a
case—sometimes two or three—the police ombudsman’s
office will, for particular reasons, decide to rake over those coals
again. What in the clause prevents the Human Rights Commission, which
is trying to establish some credibility after a stormy period, from
doing the same
thing?
Paul
Goggins:
I draw to the hon. Gentleman’s attention,
as I did the hon. Member for North Down, the other provisions. It is
only if the Human Rights Commission believes that a complaint has been
insufficiently investigated that it can carry out its own inquiry. It
is required to place on record the terms of reference for that
investigation, and has to give them to the person or persons who are
being investigated. Also, there is a right of appeal against the
investigation being carried out. While the clause extends powers, we
have safeguards in place to ensure that no frivolous investigations can
be carried
out.
Mr.
Robertson:
When I met the Human Rights Commission some
months ago, I asked what number of cases it deals with. I cannot
remember the exact number, but it passes on to the relevant agencies
something like 90 per cent. of the cases that are referred to it. If
the relevant agency does not then carry out an investigation to the
commission’s satisfaction, is the commission able to take it up
again? That seems a ridiculous
duplication.
Paul
Goggins:
Let us be clear about this, and I am grateful to
the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the agreements between the
various oversight bodies work in practice. The Human Rights Commission
does not seek to investigate everything. If it believes that a
complaint is better suited to another oversight body it passes it on.
The fact that the Human Rights Commission might suspect that it would
come to a different conclusion would not be grounds to carry out its
own investigation. Only if the commission believed that the other body
concerned did not carry out an investigation that should have been
carried out, or if it believed that the other body had investigated
insufficiently, would it have the power to carry out its own
investigation, subject to all the safeguards that I have
described—the need to present terms of reference and the
opportunity for challenge and appeal.
I have no doubt that in practice
a very sensible approach will be adopted to the arrangements, that the
agreements between oversight bodies will continue to work as
effectively as they do, and that no frivolous investigations will be
carried out, because of the safeguards in the
clause.
Sammy
Wilson:
The Minister has indicated that he believes the
Human Rights Commission has not sought to overstep its powers; indeed,
he cited evidence given by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. Does he
accept that in many ways the Human Rights Commission has already
overstepped its remit by commenting on the war in Iraq, education
matters, such as the ending of the 11-plus, and numerous other things?
That trend within the Human Rights Commission is already evident. Does
he accept that the clause provides an opportunity for it to overstep
its remit
further?
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Gentleman himself—I give him
credit for it—previously highlighted the Human Rights
Commission’s commitment to being seen as a credible body in
Northern Ireland. I think he acknowledged that in his terms there had
been positive movement in that direction. We are considering powers to
carry out investigations, rather than to pass comment on matters that
may or may not be of interest to the general public. I ask him to focus
on the powers that are being given in the
clause.
I do not think
that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred—not in great
detail, anyway—to amendment No. 16, which would require the
commission to provide a reason for issuing a notice for evidence at the
point of its issue. I agree with the sentiment, although as the hon.
Gentleman will have noted and as I have mentioned, clause 16 would
require the provision of terms of reference, including the specifying
of a period in which the investigation must be concluded. That
requirement will be sufficient and I hope that he will be satisfied
with that.
I shall
reserve any other comments that I might have made on other amendments
in the group for another
opportunity.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am grateful for the Minister’s
explanation of the way in which the clause is worded. I remain
concerned, however, for the reasons that I and other Opposition Members
have given. As I mentioned, the commission often in practice passes a
complaint on to a body that it presumably thinks might more
appropriately, at that point, investigate the unlawful acts or the
other issues in question. The power then to pass judgment on whether
the matter has been sufficiently investigated by the other body puts it
in a very powerful position—almost more powerful, in some ways,
than the police, for example. Will the commission have available to it
all the facts that would be available to the police, because it is to
be able to judge whether the police, for example, have sufficiently
investigated the unlawful act? I am very uncomfortable with
that.
That said, and
having listened to the Minister’s explanation, perhaps my
amendments do not fully address my concerns. I do not know whether you
are minded to allow a stand part debate on the clause, Mrs.
Anderson.
The
Chairman:
indicated
assent.
Mr.
Robertson:
We may have to consider voting against
the clause. I am not satisfied that the role of the commission is
likely to be carried out properly, given the extension of its
powers.
Paul
Goggins:
Let me repeat that this is not an unbridled power
to examine and investigate willy-nilly anything and everything that may
be of concern to the commission, and the hon. Gentleman should bear
that in mind when he considers whether to support the clause. The
commission must provide terms of reference and there is an opportunity
to appeal against the decision to carry out an investigation—in
other words, there is judicial oversight of the commission’s
power to carry out investigations. Indeed, if there were any serious
question that the commission was being frivolous or attempting to
duplicate an investigation that had been thoroughly carried out
elsewhere, its decision could be challenged in court.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman
will be reassured by that when he reflects on whether to support the
clause. We want to give the commission the proposed additional powers,
but they are still subject to safeguards and scrutiny that would result
in decisions being taken to court. I hope that that will be sufficient
to encourage him to support the clause and withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Robertson:
I am grateful to the Minister again. I still
have a lot of concerns about the general drift and about the way in
which the commission is going. When it was set up under the 1998 Act,
it had considerable powers, and it could be argued that they are quite
sufficient. I am uncomfortable about giving the commission further
powers, including the power to consider whether
“the matter to which the notice
relates has already been sufficiently investigated by another
person”,
but we will see
how the clause stand part debate goes. For now, however, I do not think
that the amendments are sufficient, so I shall not press them. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lady
Hermon:
In fairness to the hon. Member for Foyle, who is
not here to move his amendments, let me say that he diligently attends
to all his parliamentary duties in the House, but that he had to fly to
Dublin yesterday—I know that that is no excuse—and had a
commitment in Belfast this morning. I am sure that no offence is
intended to you, Mrs. Anderson, or to colleagues on the
Committee.
I oppose
the clause because I am deeply concerned about the ramifications of
what we have just discussed. We have had a useful debate so far about
what appeared to be a quite innocuous extension of the powers of the
Human Rights Commission. I am not a great critic of the commission, as
the Minister said, but I want us to be consistent and get things right,
and we have the opportunity to do so while the Bill is before us.
The Minister tried to
assuage the fears of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury by responding with
what it is quite right to call the facts. The facts are that an appeal
could be taken to the county court where the commission has served a
notice on an individual and drawn up terms of reference under later
clauses. That is all well and good if a person can afford to take an
appeal to the county court, but let us think of the many police
officers who retired under the Patten package.
After the Belfast agreement, we
had the Patten report, and many police officers left what was the Royal
Ulster Constabulary—I am, of course, married to a former chief
constable of the RUC, although that is not relevant; I merely draw it
to the Committee’s attention to it. I am extremely concerned
about the situation in respect of the police ombudsman investigating
complaints of alleged police misconduct by serving or past officers.
Many past officers receive no financial assistance in making a court
challenge to a decision of the
ombudsman.
9.45
am
The same
situation will apply when, under subsection (4), the Human Rights
Commission alone decides to issue a notice when it has
“considered whether the matter to
which the notice relates has already been sufficiently investigated by
another person,
and”
when, in its wisdom,
it has
“concluded that it
has not.”
The commission
will make an entirely subjective decision about whether to proceed with
an investigation.
Subsection (6)
states:
“where the
Commission thinks that a
person—
(a) has failed
without reasonable excuse to comply with a
notice”.
Most bizarrely
of all, it goes on to
state:
“or
(b)
is likely to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a
notice.”
The commission
will decide on whether a person has failed, or is likely to fail
without reasonable excuse, to comply with a notice. The matter then
becomes an offence; subsection (8) states that someone “commits
an offence” if they do not “comply with a
notice”.
By
dint of the clause, we will again give powers to the Human Rights
Commission that mean that the person at the other end—the one
who is receiving the notice of an investigation—is seriously
disadvantaged in terms of financial support should they apply to the
county court to get rid of the wretched notice.
If the Minister is intent on
driving forward with the clause, I should remind him of the suggestion
that I made on Second Reading. We have a chief inspector of criminal
justice, a post established by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002,
who can examine the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the police
service reserve, the state pathologist and the Office of the Police
Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. The clause gives extensive powers to
the Human Rights Commission, which is not accountable to, or reviewable
by, any other body, but it should be—it ought, at least, to be
inspected. I urge the Minister not to tell the Committee that the
commission is
independent and therefore cannot be open to review by the chief
inspector of criminal justice, because he knows full well that the
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is also a statutory
independent body and that it is reviewable and can be inspected by the
chief inspector of criminal justice. The precedent has been set, so
when Minister defends the clause, as he will do, I urge him to assure
the Committee that he will seriously examine extending the powers of
the chief inspector of criminal justice, so that people can have
confidence that the Human Rights Commission is not off on a frolic of
its own trailing through past cases that have already been investigated
by the police ombudsman, the PSNI and various other bodies. I am
horrified at the manner in which the clause stands at present, and I
shall certainly vote against it.
Mr.
Bone:
Will the Minister answer a question on subsection
(4)? It
states:
“The
Commission may issue a notice under subsection (1) only if it
has—
(a) considered
whether the matter to which the notice relates has already been
sufficiently investigated by another
person”.
Surely that is a
Catch-22 situation. The commission has to investigate initially to find
out whether there has been a sufficient investigation. The drafting is
so woolly. The Minister is allowing the commission to investigate on
any grounds at any time. Is that not really the
case?
Sammy
Wilson:
My view of the Human Rights Commission is slightly
more jaundiced than that of the hon. Member for North Down, in the same
way that my view of the Belfast agreement is much more so than that of
the hon. Member for Foyle. The hon. Lady made the scurrilous allegation
that my party has accepted that agreement. She need only listen to the
hon. Member for Foyle and his party to know that they believe that we
are practically rewriting it. But I shall leave that to one
side—I just felt that I had to rise to the bait that she threw
out.
The Human Rights
Commission has been in turmoil. It is a newly formed body with a very
turbulent first few years, in which it has shown no ability even to
operate its current powers. The commissioner left under a cloud and the
institution is still finding its feet. Under those circumstances, to
give it more powers is inappropriate and premature. As with all groups,
it is trying to establish itself and prove its worth, so the tendency
will be to push the boundaries as far as possible. Clause 14 almost
encourages it to do that. There is no restriction on the investigations
that it could undertake. The commission will conclude whether a matter
has been investigated sufficiently by another person. That is totally
subjective. There is no objectivity in it at all. It will be totally
dependent on the view of the
commission.
The
commission might see value to itself in certain cases. For instance,
some might raise its profile positively, whereas others might be
pursued owing to political push, or vociferous groups or
individuals—that will be the tendency. The Minister said that if
anyone feels aggrieved that the commission has overstepped itself and
that a full investigation has been conducted already—
the hon. Member for North Down pointed this out—the onus will be
on them to challenge the commission’s decision, but without its
resources. Do not forget that the commission is backed up by huge
public resources whereas a private individual might not have any at
all. Police officers in my constituency—it might not be just
police officers—have found themselves in that position with the
police ombudsman. There is the same potential with the
commission. I do not
believe that the commission has made the case for an extension of its
powers. The Minister knows that it wants to push the boundaries of its
powers as much as possible—so much so, in fact, that he had to
accept in the consultation document that much of what it asked to be
included in the Bill could not be accepted because it went beyond what
the Government see as its remit. I suspect that having turned down some
of its milder requests for the extension of its powers, the Government
have thrown the provisions before us as a sop to the commission. The
decision to include them in the Bill should not have been made on that
basis and, therefore, we will join the hon. Member for North Down in
opposing clause
14.
Mr.
Robertson:
I shall not go over the arguments raised when I
discussed my amendments, nor indeed those arguments put forward by the
hon. Members for North Down and for East Antrim; I shall just reiterate
my concern.
Clause 14
says insert “69A Investigations: evidence”,
and:
“For the
purpose of an investigation...the Commission may by notice in
writing require a person—”
to provide information, documents, oral
evidence and so forth. As hon. Members have said, there is no comeback
for the person who is required to provide that evidence, unless he has
unlimited funds, which few people have. I remain concerned about the
extent of the powers that commission has, and indeed seeks.
In the documents that the
commission sent presumably to all hon. Members on the Committee, it
complains that clause 14 also severely limits the capacity of the
commission to investigate anything connected with national security. My
goodness, should a human rights commission be investigating matters of
national security? It should not, but that is its drive. The Minister
does not want it to happen, but the commission certainly
does.
Paul
Goggins:
We have not had the opportunity to touch on
national security issues, but the hon. Gentleman knows from examining
the clauses on the Human Rights Commission that it will not be able to
investigate matters of national security.
Mr.
Robertson:
Indeed, and I do not accuse the Minister of
wanting the commission to do so. However, that is its drive, that is
the way it is pushing and that is of great concern.
With those few remarks, I
remain dissatisfied with clause 14. I look forward to the
Minister’s response, although we have probably heard most of it
already. We will see how we go.
Paul
Goggins:
The Minister will try not to be too repetitive,
but I regret that that may be the case.
The hon. Members for North Down
and for East Antrim raised the issue of legal aid. I expect that if the
Human Rights Commission had issued a notice about an investigation to
an individual, they would be entitled to legal aid, subject to the
usual merits and means test that would apply to any legal aid
application in any proceedings. However, it is important to remember
that in most cases, the commission will investigate not individuals but
organisations. That will be the normal type of investigation. The idea
of the commission harassing and haranguing the penniless person is
inaccurate.
Mr.
Robertson:
It is
possible.
Paul
Goggins:
If somebody satisfied the means and merit tests,
they as an individual would be able to apply for legal aid and they
would have the wherewithal to counter the commission’s notice. I
shall confirm that point to my satisfaction, and if turns out to be
untrue I shall write to hon. Members to make them aware. For the most
part, however, the commission will investigate organisations and the
issue will not arise.
Lady
Hermon:
Will the Minister point to a single clause in this
extensive Bill stating that the commission will mostly investigate
organisations? Is there anything in the Bill to support the claim?
Without repeating what I have just pointed out to the Minister, the
vast majority of retired police officers on their pensions will not
qualify for legal aid. That was the problem when we discussed
investigations by the police ombudsman. Such an investigation is an
enormous ordeal, and to come through it and have it reopened without
the assistance of legal aid—despite reassurances to the
Committee—by an unaccountable Northern Ireland Human Rights
Commission is unacceptable and
unreasonable.
Paul
Goggins:
It is unusual for the hon. Lady to paint an
exaggerated picture, but with that argument I fear that she has. I have
already assured the Committee, and I shall offer the following
reassurance to her: an individual or organisation that has been through
the investigation she describes would have undergone a thorough
investigation, so in practice the commission would have no ground on
which to conduct its inquiry and investigation. The investigation would
already have been carried out thoroughly. If someone has been subjected
to a thorough and long-running investigation, it is highly unlikely
that the Human Rights Commission would reopen it. That would just not
occur in real life, and I suggest that the hon. Lady is painting a
slightly exaggerated
picture.
10
am
Mr.
Bone:
Even in his answer the Minister said that an
investigation was highly unlikely, which means that it could happen.
How on earth can he guarantee that it would not when the commission has
to investigate whether the original investigation was thorough
enough?
Paul
Goggins:
The hon. Gentleman made that point earlier.
Clearly, the commission must have grounds for believing that an
investigation was insufficient. I have said that that is subject to
terms of reference being drawn up, and to appeal. A safeguard is in
place to ensure that frivolous inquiry does not take
place.
The hon.
Gentleman brings us to the nub of the issue. The Human Rights
Commission is independent, so there must be a point at which it is free
to make its own judgment and decisions, and to carry out its own
investigations. If it is not truly independent, it cannot be trusted
absolutely to do the job that we expect it to do. Of course, there are
restrictions in place—for example, in relation to national
security—and there are safeguards in the terms of reference and
appeals.
There must be
an element of independence. We may not always like the investigations
that are carried out or the conclusions that are reached, but the
commission must have that so that it has credibility for the public
generally. Being able to make a judgment on whether there has been
sufficient investigation is a firm guarantee of an overall system of
scrutiny in Northern Ireland that is fit for purpose and does the
job.
Mr.
Robertson:
To coin a
phrase.
Paul
Goggins:
Perhaps I should withdraw that
comment.
In most
cases, the conclusion when an investigation had already been carried
out would be that a sufficient investigation had been carried out, thus
guaranteeing oversight, which is considerable in Northern Ireland with
the ombudsman and so on. The provision is a guarantee that the
oversight system works in
practice.
I am sure
that hon. Members in Northern Ireland and others will be assiduous in
asking questions about how many investigations are carried out and so
on, and the commission will publish its own reports so we will be able
to see how the system works in practice. I believe that it will be
independent, albeit with greater powers that will occasionally enable
it to carry out an investigation, but for the most part it will offer a
guarantee that the overall system works
effectively.
Mr.
Robertson:
The clause is written with reference to
“person” rather than “person or
organisation”, which gives rise to the concern expressed by the
hon. Member for North Down. I know that it is difficult to give a
specific example without warning, but could the Minister give an
example of the sort of cases that the powers will enable the commission
to
investigate?
Paul
Goggins:
If a complaint had been made to the
commission by someone in prison about something that had happened
there, it would immediately refer the matter to the prisoner ombudsman.
That would be the appropriate oversight person to carry out the
investigation. If subsequently—perhaps six months
later—the prisoner contacted the commission saying, “I
was in touch with you. You recommended that the prisoner ombudsman
carry out the investigation, but he has never been in touch with
me,” the commission would first inquire of the ombudsman why the
investigation was not carried out. If the ombudsman said, “Well,
I had a look at it and decided not to do so,” and the commission
felt that there were grounds for an investigation, it could
investigate.
Mr.
Robertson:
It is
duplication.
Paul
Goggins:
There is no duplication because, as the hon.
Gentleman said, the vast majority of complaints will be handed over to
the appropriate body and followed through in a thorough and timely way.
The power enables us all to be certain that all complaints will be
properly investigated and that an appropriate response will be
made.
I want to make
a little progress. I reassure the hon. Member for North Down, who at
least once—twice, I think—mentioned the prospect of
retired police officers being investigating by the Human Rights
Commission when they had already been the subject of other
investigations. The Bill includes a start date of January 2008, so the
prospect of such retired officers being subjected to investigation by
the commission does not arise. The commission is not part of the
criminal justice system and therefore it is not appropriate that it
should be under the scrutiny of an inspectorate. That is a simple
matter of fact.
I want
briefly to allude to one or possible arguments in relation to other
propositions that might have been made. It is very important—we
have included a relevant provision in the Bill—that the Human
Rights Commission cannot force people to produce information that other
legislation prevents them from providing. For example, if someone is
prevented under data protection legislation from providing information,
the Human Rights Commission cannot compel that person to provide it.
The Bill makes that
clear.
We spent
considerable time explaining to the hon. Member for Foyle why we wanted
to retain limited rights of appeal, whereas he encouraged the Committee
to press for broader rights of appeal, and I am intrigued to note that
some of his amendments would have removed rights of appeal altogether.
I have made clear to the Committee the importance of a right of appeal
against the issue of a notice, to preserve the right balance.
It is of course important that
the Human Rights Commission cannot be in a position to compel the
prosecution services, for example, to provide information. The
prosecution service must make a judgment and it would be wrong for it
to be forced to bring information about the decision in question before
the Human Rights
Commission.
Sammy
Wilson:
I thank the Minister for his observation in which,
perhaps unintentionally, he exposed one of the difficulties faced by
the Human Rights Commission—that it is seen as a fairly partisan
body with which those on the nationalist side would have more sympathy
and which they would regard as more sympathetic to their point of view
than to others. I suspect that that is why the hon. Member for Foyle,
who is not here to answer for himself, wants fewer powers of appeal
against the Human Rights Commission than he wanted in relation to
matters that we discussed
earlier.
Paul
Goggins:
We can only speculate about arguments that might
have been put to the Committee.
However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we need to
arrive at a point in Northern Ireland at which all the relevant
bodies—whether the Human Rights Commission or the Police Service
of Northern Ireland—serve the interest of all communities there,
and are perceived to be doing so.
In conclusion, the fines in the
clause are appropriate. Furthermore, it is important that we have an
exclusion for matters of national security intelligence because it
would be quite wrong if the commission were in a position to force
intelligence to be passed into its hands and into the public domain. It
is therefore important that we have the relevant restriction in
place.
Question
put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
4.
Division
No.
8
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 14 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
The
Chairman:
We were now to have discussed amendment No. 46
to clause 15, in the name of the hon. Member for Foyle. Let me say for
the benefit of the Committee that the hon. Gentleman did me the
courtesy of sending me a letter explaining that he would not be able to
be here this morning, but that he hopes to be here this
afternoon.
Clauses
15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
