Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

First, I thank the Minister and wish to say that I made a mistake, for which I apologise. He is perfectly right to say that the commissions to which I referred do not have the power to inspect in the way that is envisaged for this commission. Therefore, to the extent that I prayed them in aid, I was wrong and I apologise. The Minister is perfectly right to say that this is a new power. He is also right that this body, unlike the Equality Commission, has no enforcement powers. However, I should have thought that that suggested a less restrictive approach than in the case of a body that had enforcement powers because, when bodies with enforcement powers use this kind of power, the sanctions are great, whereas this body has no sanction; it can only make recommendations. I shall try briefly to persuade the Minister to keep his mind ajar on this because the Bill is framed in such a way that requires the commission before it investigates to have terms of reference. Clause 16(1) states that the power we are talking about, "““may be used in relation to an investigation only if the Commission has … prepared terms of reference for the investigation in advance, and … sent a copy of the terms of reference to … any person identified in them … a person responsible for any place of detention specified in them, and … any other person whom the Commission thinks may be affected by the investigation””." There is a requirement that notice must be given from the outset of what is envisaged before the power can be exercised. It is perfectly clear that a person who is subject to the pains and penalties of an investigation can apply for judicial review if he is not treated fairly. There have been several cases in which the equality agencies with much greater powers than this body will have found that when they serve terms of reference, the person goes to the High Court and says, ““This is unfair, oppressive, irrelevant””, or whatever else, and the court is astute to make sure that the body involved keeps within proper bounds. I suggest that the real safeguard is that the commission will have to give notice at the outset, serve the terms of reference on those concerned and if they do not like them, one could—as Viscount Hailsham once did in one of our equality Bills many years ago—build in a provision for some kind of hearing on the terms of reference, or some right to be heard about them. That is a possibility to ensure fairness—the courts would require it. The Minister says that he does not like my use of horse-racing language, such as hobbling and shackling, so I shall try to avoid it. Let me say ““restrictions””. There is a new power, but it is subject to restrictions. The Minister said that those are safeguards, but safeguards for whom? If it is a safeguard of fairness and reasonableness, the courts are always there to ensure that. I am not satisfied that we need this enormously cumbersome procedure in order that the grant of a power for a body with no enforcement powers should not be misused. I think the Minister means safeguards that the commission will act fairly and reasonably, and not oppressively. I agree with that, but such matters can be dealt with by judicial review courts. I shall reflect on what the Minister has said, as I am sure will he and his advisers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 26 to 30 not moved.] Clause 15 agreed to. Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to. Clause 19 [Timing]: