New clause 5 - Time limit on investigations by the Ombudsman
Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm
Mr David Trimble (Upper Bann, UUP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause was largely inspired by clause 12, which empowers the police ombudsman to investigate current police practices and policies. I note that the Government clearly confined the ombudsman's role under clause 12 to dealing with current matters, an approach with which I heartily concur. I have not had the opportunity to check the report that led to the creation of a police ombudsman, but I am sure that it was not in the minds of those who decided upon such a role that it would be appropriate for her to conduct inquiries into events that occurred a long time ago. In principle, that is undesirable, but regrettably she has done so. Indeed, one of her first inquiries was into events that occurred some 30 years ago. That is quite wrong.
The provision has to be seen in the light of the negotiations that led to the Belfast Agreement. During those negotiations, the question of whether we should follow the South African practice and have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was canvassed. I and my colleagues took the view, as did others, that that would be undesirable. We acknowledged—everyone knows it—that during the past 30 years quite a few terrible things had happened, and that a large number of members of the community had been injured or victimised by events; but we said that, having agreed upon new structures and procedures, and having agreed a settlement, it was necessary that the settlement should be allowed to bed in, and to be broadly accepted.
We felt that the settlement would not bed in if people had the opportunity to pick and scratch at all
the sores in the body politic that had been occasioned over the past 30 years. Consequently, the greater number of those involved in the negotiations took the very conscious decision that we should not go back and revisit all the things that had happened in the past. Yes, we have to have concern for victims; and, yes, things should be done for victims—and things have been done for them. However, to allow people somehow to re-run all the arguments of the past 30 years, to give people a means of settling whatever scores they believed still had to be settled, would be wrong in practice.
That is one of the reasons why some of us have been so critical of the Government's decision to institute inquiries such as that now sitting in Londonderry. That inquiry has raked up at least £100 million in court costs—the costs are likely to exceed £200 million by the time that it is finished—but it is a wholly misconceived approach, which is doing nothing to encourage reconciliation in the community. But that is by the way.
I mention that simply to make the point that we considered it best to draw a line, and to persuade the community to move on. In that context, it would be wrong for the police ombudsman to go back into the past; she has done so once, and she may do so again. We entirely approve of the approach adopted by the Government in clause 12, whereby the ombudsman will be directed to deal solely with current matters. We think that that should be the case with regard to other complaints received by the ombudsman. That is the reason for new clause 5.
The new clause would limit the ombudsman to dealing with complaints relating to matters that have taken place within the last 12 months. That is a reasonable and adequate period for all those who believe that they have suffered as a result of an abuse of police powers. Indeed, some might feel that 12 months is a bit generous, and that if people want to pursue a complaint they should do so within 12 months of the incident. It is obviously a matter of balance as to how far back one should go, and we chose 12 months.
I raise the issue in order to direct the Government's attention to the matter. I suggest that, having adopted such an admirable approach in clause 12, they should be consistent and apply the principle elsewhere.