Clause 18 - Provision of information to Board
Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
8:55 am
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
As I understand them, the conditions apply to the inquiry. If the person subject to the inquiry will be compromised, there will be protection. I accept that. However, I am saying that such matters that have nothing to do with the inquiry, but are extraneous information about something entirely different, which is attached to a document that is relevant. The 2000 Act does not make it absolutely clear that the protection will extend to a third party. Even if it does, there is no protection with regard to compromising or prejudicial criminal investigations: that has been left out. The hon. Gentleman frowns. He should read the safeguards that are referred to in the clause: they have been debated and we have objected to them because they do not include such protection.
A document demanded that is handed to the board might contain extraneous information. That could create a serious situation: the information might identify an informant and put his or her life at risk, or reveal financial information about third parties. I doubt whether financial information is covered by the term ''personnel information'' that is referred to in the list of exceptions. There might be a great deal of financial information about somebody, and someone who undertakes a background inquiry into a person tends to list all that is known about that individual. I fail to see why documents that might contain information that has nothing to do with the inquiry that is being carried out should be handed to the board, whose members are of diverse political persuasions that represent the entire community.
I am deeply worried about the practicalities of what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. I have some sympathy with the principle of the need for the board to be reassured that the information that it is given is accurate and complete. If he were to suggest on Report that there is a way of achieving such reassurance, I would be willing to consider supporting him, so long as his proposal makes sense and has safeguards. However, I am deeply worried by the suggestion that the board must have the absolute right to demand documents as well as information. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.