| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ingram: We should be careful not to present ourselves as experts. None of us have really been through the process. I understand my hon. Friend's analogy, but the way in which he says that this should happen could be seen as prescriptive. The commission has already been given an onerous task, as have those working alongside it to help families. I referred earlier to the need for an inter-agency approach. All the necessary agencies are now in place: whatever information is required--social work support, access to dental records or access to DNA testing--all the Northern Ireland departments are there to provide it, and to deal with any eventuality.
Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister confirm that the commission can give relatives only two pieces of information? It can say that it has received information, but not what that information is; and it can say where a body is located.
Mr. Ingram: In one sense, that is strictly true. Restrictions are placed on the commission. We must be careful about discussing such matters on the Floor of the House, because families will obviously want to know the
precise position in relation to certain aspects of the Bill. We do not know what questions those families will raise, and we do not know what demands will be placed on the commission, but the clause restricts the commission by preventing it from giving evidence that would work against other clauses in the Bill. That is specific; and then there is all the handling not just of the commission, but of those involved in working on the site and those--representatives of either the Garda Siochana or the RUC--who are keeping the families closely involved in the process.
Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is accurate. The prohibition clause refers to "relevant information", which is defined in clause 1(3) as
- "information as to the whereabouts of the remains of a victim of violence".
7.15 pm
Mr. Ingram: I do not know how the commission would have information about the manner of a person's death unless information of that nature was given to it. It would not establish the criteria.
I may have misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman--I hope he will forgive me if I have--but he referred to the commission in the context of the manner of death, and the where and the when. That information will emerge from the inquest, which is public, and is not the commission's responsibility. It will emerge later, once the remains have been found. It will then become the property of the family of the deceased, and of anyone else who has a similar interest. All that the commission can impart to families is that it has information, and the place where the victim's remains may be found.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde implied, the sensitivity of the matter means that we should not be too prescriptive or explore the situation too deeply. To do so would place a terrible onus on the commission. It would not want to close the door on families, but I do not think that they should be given more information. There are words of comfort that those who are part of the overall operation may think it helpful to offer, but any provision would have to be very narrow and restrictive. I cannot begin to speculate on what such a provision could be. We must be restrictive about the information that the commission can impart so that our provision does not conflict with other elements of the Bill.
Mr. Hogg:
What the Minister has said so far has a good deal of substance, but will he address the point that I put to him earlier? If the commission had information about, for instance, the manner of death which might help the defence, would it have the right to communicate that
Mr. Ingram:
The commission is different from the RUC. The RUC would know that a court case was in progress, and that relevant information was involved. That is a duty placed on the RUC in this part of the criminal justice process. The knowledge base, as it were, would not necessarily reside with the commission. There might be awareness, in which case the commission would be covered by other legislation. It would then have to examine what it was entitled to do and what it was restricted in doing, and--as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows--would have to comply with all the law of the land, not just the legislation with which it was having to deal in that instance.
I do not envisage circumstances in which the commission would necessarily know that a court case was in progress in the High Court, and the information would be relevant. The RUC would quickly become aware of the information, because it would be passed to it so that it could take the necessary action to recover the remains. Let us not discuss whether that would happen within minutes, within hours or within days, but it would happen very quickly. As I said earlier, we must bear in mind the possibility of leaks to the media. The commission must get the whole operation under way quickly, and the victims' families must be notified and advised as soon as possible.
I hope that that answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. I will read what he said; I do not know whether he said it eight, nine or 10 times, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that we would consider it carefully, and that we would return to it if that proved necessary. However, we do not believe that the arguments advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman force us to do so.
Mr. Thompson:
Does the Minister agree that, because of the severe limitations, the families are likely to be very disappointed at how little information they receive? Does that not go completely contrary to the recent Macpherson report on the death of Stephen Lawrence, where the police were severely criticised because they did not feed as much information as possible to the relatives?
Mr. Ingram:
I think that we are chewing over the matter somewhat. The hon. Gentleman is not having to deal with the families--please do not say that the families might be disappointed. They find themselves in traumatic circumstances. Some of them have been subjected to false hopes before.
I have tried to explain the sensitive way in which the matter will be handled. I have much confidence in those who are acting in the interests of the Governments in this case to deal with all that. The professionalism of those who have to deal with the matter has stood the test of time and should not be subjected to the implied criticism that the families will be disappointed. I ask the hon. Gentleman please not to discourage the families any more than is necessary.
Mr. Thompson:
It is a matter not of questioning anyone's competence, but of the law and of the legal
Mr. Ingram:
The hon. Gentleman has not tried to amend the legislation to increase the amount of information given. Perhaps that is because he accepts the arguments. We now have an argument for argument's sake. The clause specifically deals with the legalities, sensitivities and practicalities of the matter. I have set out how we are handling it, taking an inter-agency approach to try to ensure that we have worked out every possible eventuality, so that, from minute one, we are ready to act to help the families. I have every confidence that that will happen. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Ingram:
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 43, at end insert--
'(4) In this section "premises" includes any place.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |