Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mark Durkan: As hon. Members can see, I and my hon. Friends have attached our names to this amendment. As it stands, clause 19 provides that the Human Rights Commission will be unable to use its investigatory powers in relation to any matter arising before 1 January 2008. Of course, we now have Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27, but they simply change the date to 1 August 2007. Big dealwhat a big shift!
The Northern Ireland Office is arguing that that there is some risk that the commission might investigate the troubles and that the provision is intended to prevent it from doing so. The reality, however, is that the Bill is couched in such a way that it will prevent the commission from investigating anything that occurred at any time in the past, no matter how far it impinges on future issues. Such issues could include child abuse or the locking up of the mentally ill at Muckamore Abbey, which is of great public concern at the minute in Northern Ireland; indeed, all parties have expressed concern about it. Given the degree of public concern and the private stress of the families and individuals involved, it is right and proper that the commission, in investigating a particular aspect of that issue, should not be confined to investigating only matters that arose after 1 August 2007. It should be able to examine any decision, document or material relating to, or any matter that arose before, that time.
That restriction does not only prohibit the Human Rights Commission from investigating the past; it also restricts its ability to protect human rights in the future. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said, comparable bodies with investigatory powers are not subject to the same restriction. The Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which he mentioned, was passed at a time of direct rule, and it had its genesis under devolution. As Deputy First Minister, I was one of the Ministers who sponsored that legislation. Not only did the then First Minister, David Trimble, and I agree on this issue, but the entire Executive were resolved that we wanted the maximum powers for the Commissioner for Children and Young People, and we did not want time limits on them. We had serious contentions with the NIO ministerial team, who wanted to ensure that the rights of the childrens commissioner did not extend into areas such as juvenile detention, but would apply only in the devolved area. There was all-party agreement on the Executive and on the cross-party departmental Committee that handled the legislation.
I hope that all the parties that were able to support strong, far-reaching investigative powersincluding issues such as detention, and with no time limits or restrictionsfor the childrens commissioner will take the same view of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Human rights commissions around the world have the role of protecting the voiceless, the vulnerable and the marginalised and of challenging those who would neglect or abuse human rights. We need similar protection in Northern Ireland and we need the HRC to be able to address competently matters of concern or complaints that arise after the date on which its investigative powers are triggered. If the restriction remains and it cannot pursue anything
that happened before that date, even though the matter that is complained about arose after it, it will be a long time before it is able to use this supposedly significant increase in its powers. That is how things work.
Lady Hermon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address the following scenario. I was very critical of him when he used parliamentary privilege two weeks ago at Prime Ministers questions to name three former RUC officers who had been anonymised in the police ombudsmans report on the Raymond McCord case. Let us say that after 1 August this year the right to life, the right to privacy and the right to a family life of one of those retired police officers were jeopardised by the hon. Gentlemans actions. Is it his contention that the Human Rights Commission could be requested by that retired officer to reinvestigate a matter arising from the Raymond McCord case?
Mark Durkan: Clearly, it would be for the HRC to deal with whatever request or complaint anybody brings to it. It would have to assess its powers, the strength of the complaint and the relevance of the issues. The hon. Lady mentions three people being anonymised, but two of them were already out in public rubbishing the ombudsmans report, one in advance of publication and the other after. They made all sorts of comments about the report without revealing that they might be mentioned in it. They were using authority and credibility in a way that was misleading the public and, in those circumstances, I felt that I had the right to provide a little more perspective.
Lady Hermon: That is a most interesting point and I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has just confirmed that he is happy that the independence of the police ombudsmanan important role in Northern Ireland and one that I hold in high regard, as I do the present holder of the officeshould be undermined by the Northern Ireland HRC. Is that really the case?
Mark Durkan: The hon. Lady knows that that is not what we are seeking to do. In any case, it would not be achieved by our amendment, which would not affect the balance of the powers of the police ombudsmans office. Is she saying that the police ombudsmans office will be more protected after the date on which the investigatory powers of the HRC kick in? That is a nonsensical argument. Protecting the independence of the police ombudsmans office has nothing to do with the time limits on the HRCs powers. Conversely, those time limits have nothing to do with whether the independence of the police ombudsmans office is protected.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend explain why the 1 August 2007 date has been chosen? What is the thinking behind that?
Mark Durkan:
The Minister is in a better position to answer that. The HRC was at a loss to understand why its powers were due to kick in only in January 2008 and why it would not be allowed to chase any matter relating to an earlier date. The Government have decided to bring the date forward to 1 August, for reasons that are hard to determine. People will have their suspicions, especially given that the Government
have canvassed the scare that the HRC might end up investigating the troubles. One could imagine that some might share a coincidence of interest in ensuring that that did not happen, in the same way that they wanted to shut off any investigation of the past arising from the Northern Ireland (Offences) Billthe so-called on-the-runs legislation.
We do not believe that there is any serious risk that the HRC will undertake a wider investigation of the troubles, as the means and instruments to deal with many of those issues already exist. The historical inquiries team and the police ombudsman are doing their jobs, and rightly so, but we sense that people who want to forget about the past and concentrate on the future will try to close them down.
A very good Russian proverb warns us that to dwell in the past is to lose one eye, but to forget the past is to lose both. As we go forward, we in Northern Ireland must be careful to treat the past in a moral way, although the Governments attempts to avoid things in the past have caused them to restrict the HRCs powers clumsily and unnecessarily. The HRC must be able to respond to all valid complaints and any cause for concern that it has. After its investigatory powers kick in, it should be able to trace issues and evidence in any way that it sees fit, as much of what will happen in the future will be sourced in past decisions and events.
Sammy Wilson: As I said in an earlier intervention, we do not believe that there should be any extension of the HRCs role and responsibility. The fact that people from the nationalist and unionist sides of the Northern Ireland community are fairly deeply divided about the HRC shows that it has not succeeded in building confidence that it is doing its job adequately and in a non-partisan manner.
For the first few years of its existence, the HRC was known more for the internal bickering and fighting that went on. Moreover, many commissioners refused to do their jobs, even though they held on to their positions. So far, the HRC has not covered itself in glory. Given that it has yet to prove that it can fulfil its existing role, I do not understand why the Minister is rushing to give it additionaland fairly draconianpowers. As I have already said, many of the things that will be included in the commissions role as a result of the legislation are already being done by other bodiesfor example, prisons in Northern Ireland are already heavily regulated and the Minister has not yet made a case for the commission to have an additional, or value-added role in that regard.
The great danger in extending the HRCs powers as the amendments propose is that it would become yet another body that dabbled in and raked over the past. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred to a case in which the HRC has suggested it could have a role. That case was investigated by the Stevens inquiry and by the police ombudsman, but now the HRC proposes to reopen it. The tendency when such bodies are given the role of looking into the past is for them to start delving for a sensational, juicy story that will guarantee them a headline and give them even more reason to ask the Government for more money, as the police ombudsman has done. They want an increased budget because they need more resources to investigate the past.
That type of empire building is an easy way for an organisation to make its name when it has been tarnished by its inability over the past four or five years to do the job it was set up to do. The easy way to get some headlines is to go for a sensational event in the past, so the Government are right to resist giving yet another body the ability to delve into the past. The historical inquiries team is already going over all the unsolved cases from the troubles on the police books, and the police ombudsman spends more of her time delving into past cases than dealing with current ones.
There will be the same danger if we give the HRC the ability to go over past cases. It is modelled on the police ombudsmans office and already shares the same traits. The challenge for the commission is to look into outstanding cases of human rights abuses. The only example of such cases offered by Members was one that my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) has already raised in the Housethe disgraceful situation at Muckamore Abbey. However, a number of avenues are already open to the victims in that case, through the health ombudsman or the childrens commissioner, so it is not necessary to extend the commissions powers as the amendment proposes. Even the powers in the Bill are not necessary, so we shall not support the amendment.
Mr. Hanson: I support the comments made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in that the Government believe that the commissions investigations should be forward looking. That is the best way to ensure that investigations make a positive contribution to the present and future development of human rights law in Northern Ireland. As he has indicated, the historical inquiries team, the police ombudsman, the Saville inquiry, the Nelson inquiry and the Wright inquiryto name but a few examplesare looking at issues relating to the past. It is important that we focus on the future. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) agreed
It being Nine oclock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [13 December 2006].
Question put, That the amendment be made:
Amendments made: No. 26, in page 15, line 35 , leave out 1st January 2008. and insert 1st August 2007..
No. 27, in page 16, line 1, leave out 1st January 2008 and insert 1st August 2007. [Mr. Hanson.]
Amendment made: No. 28, in page 29, line 9, at end insert
(aa) section (Northern Ireland department with policing and justice functions) (and Schedule (Northern Ireland department with policing and justice functions));. -[Mr. Hanson.]
Next Section | Index | Home Page |