Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 6:15 pm on 25 October 2000.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Mayhew of Twysden Lord Mayhew of Twysden Conservative 6:15, 25 October 2000

Perhaps I may ask a question. I appreciate and thoroughly support the policy implemented in subsection (11) to fulfil Patten's desire that this procedure should look forward and not backwards. Therefore, subsection (11) states:

"An inquiry ... may not deal with acts or omissions which occurred ... before the coming into force of this section".

However, there is a proviso in Amendment No. 214, which states that that will not,

"prevent a person conducting an inquiry ... from considering facts relating to a pre-commencement matter".

I appreciate that the facts must be relevant to the inquiry. However, I do not believe that it is quite enough to say "facts". How is it to be established what is a fact and what is not? That can be established only by a process of inquiry and, in the type of inquiry which we are considering, I do not doubt that there will be provision for legal representation. However, that provides a way back into pre-commencement episodes which goes against the policy of Clause 11.

I do not expect the Minister to deal with the matter conclusively straightaway. However, I believe that he will see that it is possible to envisage that certain circumstances may arise in which an episode which perhaps occurred several years prior to the matter being inquired into will be said to be germane to the inquiry. I believe that that would be harmful. I wish that more people understood how difficult it is to establish the facts of an episode which occurred even one year ago, let alone many years ago. Therefore, if the Minister sees force in my submission, perhaps he will undertake to consider it and I shall be greatly assured.