Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

moved Amendment No. 24: 24: Clause 15 , page 13, line 17, leave out ““means”” and insert ““includes”” The noble Lord said: I begin by apologising for the fact that I was not able to be here on Monday. At least I have a reason, or even an alibi: I had to be in Strasbourg on a grave and weighty human rights matter. I am very sorry that I was not here because my function is to act on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and to raise those issues that we have raised in our report on the Bill so that the Minister can reply; the Committee will no doubt want to consider the debate as a whole as we go through each of the issues that the Joint Committee raised. We are largely concerned, in this amendment and others, with the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The amendments have been grouped in a slightly odd way, so that one is considering bits and pieces rather than the whole context of the problem. I say by way of brief introduction that, when considering the powers of this commission, it is important to have regard to the kind of powers that are enjoyed by the existing commissions dealing with human rights, notably the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The amendment is one of several amendments—we shall come to others, such as Amendment No. 25, later—concerned with access to places of detention. I remind the Committee of what the Joint Committee on Human Rights drew to the attention of both Houses about this, beginning with paragraph 1.67 of our report. It said: "““In relation to the restrictions placed on the Commission's new power to access places of detention, the Government argues that the Northern Ireland Prison Service has been subject to inspections and external reviews from 17 different bodies since 2004, and that it is right that ‘places of detention have the opportunity to suggest that an additional investigation is not necessary if it has only recently co-operated with an investigation by another body in very similar territory’””." The Government also pointed out that, "““despite the fact that a place of detention will have a 15-day period during which it can appeal against a visit, once that period is over or any application against the use of the power has been determined in the Commission's favour, the Commission will have unrestricted access for the purposes of the relevant investigation. The Commission””—" that is, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission— "““argues, on the other hand, that its power of access to places of detention must allow for unannounced visits if it is to be effective as a means of discouraging or uncovering human rights violations. It also points out that, unless it has announced a formal investigation, it will be reliant on the permission of the relevant authorities to undertake a visit in pursuance of its other statutory responsibilities.""““In response to our question—" that is, the Joint Committee’s question— "““the Government did not provide us with its assessment of whether the power to access places of detention as set out in the Bill was sufficient to enable the NIHRC to be part of the UK's National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) under OPCAT””—" that is, the optional protocol to the convention against torture— "““Instead it said that discussions on the nature of the NPM and the various bodies which should be part of it are still in progress and no final judgment has been reached. Article 20 of OPCAT requires States Parties, inter alia, to grant NPMs ‘access to all places of detention and their installations and facilities’ and ‘the liberty to choose the places they want to visit and the persons they want to interview’””." That is the necessary background. The Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed the view that the restrictions placed by the Bill on the commission’s powers to access places of detention are, "““far too onerous to enable it to carry out its statutory responsibilities in an effective manner. We consider that an unrestricted right of access to places of detention for the Commission, subject to the redress of judicial review if the Commission uses its power inappropriately, is necessary to enable the Commission to protect the human rights of those in the custody of the state. We also consider that the proposals in the Bill make it very doubtful whether the Commission could form part of the UK's National Preventive Mechanism under OPCAT””." I hope those issues are plain and obvious to Members of the Committee. I have never seen in any statute such a hobbling of the powers of a body that is given an important independent task, especially when it is to protect human rights. Certainly, one does not find similar hobbling of the equivalent body in the Republic of Ireland or of any human rights commission in any other jurisdiction with which I am familiar—South Africa, New Zealand, Australia or India. If I can put it not too pejoratively, the question that arises is why the Government have so little confidence in the wisdom of a commission, which will be subject to judicial review if it misuses its powers, that they find it necessary to hobble the commission by restricting its powers of access and by producing a highly bureaucratic and cumbersome mechanism that must be gone through when an investigation may already have been carried out by another body. If I think about bodies that I know better, such as the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Commission for Racial Equality, they are free to investigate suspected discriminatory practices irrespective of whether other bodies, such as the Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons or the ombudsman, has carried out an inspection. The Committee takes the view that having willed the creation of a commission of this kind, taken care about selecting its appointments and recognised that it is fully subject to judicial review if it misuses its powers, these restrictions are not appropriate or necessary. The Committee very much hopes that the Government will remove these shackles. The other important aspect is the optional protocol to the convention against torture because it is extremely important that the United Kingdom is able to set a good example about access to the international mechanisms provided, especially on something as serious as torture. It is therefore vital that if the taxpayer is spending money on a Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, that body should be able to be part of the UK’s national preventive mechanism. We have explained our serious doubts about whether that would be possible unless these shackles are removed. Amendment No. 24 is one of a series of amendments relating to the same problem, and I shall not make the same speech again on the other amendments. This amendment is a limited amendment because it provides that the places of detention referred to should be in an inclusive list, not in a closed list. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission supports what I have just said, which I said not just on my own behalf, but on behalf of a unanimous Joint Committee on Human Rights. I beg to move.