Bloody Sunday Inquiry

Lord Tebbit Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, I am prone to speak directly at times, so I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, will forgive me if I say how much I disagree with him and suggest that he might like to think about whether he would have made his speech before the Saville inquiry. If there is any logic in what he has said, it would have been better, or at least as good, to draw the line then, rather than now, would it not?

I was pleased to hear the words of my noble friend Lord Mawhinney and, indeed, those of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in defence of the Army.

Too many who have never had the experience of making a difficult decision, taken on imperfect information and when they may have been frightened, are quick to condemn those who react wrongly under those pressures.

My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said pretty well all that had to be said about what happened in Londonderry in the wake of the publication of the inquiry. That has been repeated today from both Front Benches. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for the way in which she facilitated private all-party briefings on Northern Ireland when she was Leader of the House. Those were very helpful indeed and I hope that that practice will continue.

My introduction to the politics of Northern Ireland predated some of the nastier experiences I have had. I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Robin Chichester-Clark, the last Ulster Unionist to hold office in a Westminster Government. In that role I frequently went back and forth to Londonderry in the early 1970s. It was an extraordinary experience to see how different things could be in different parts of the same kingdom.

It should not have taken 12 years to produce the report, nor cost £190 million in outdoor relief for wealthy lawyers. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, observed, we are all indebted to them for this report; indeed, we are highly indebted. It was right to discover what happened that day, so far as we could. I do not differ from what has been said about the tragic errors and failures that led to such a loss of life. However, there is something else about the report which seems to have largely escaped notice; it is testimony to the existence of an entirely different attitude towards public affairs, politics and public order in Northern Ireland from that which we experience and enjoy in the rest of this kingdom. That was the thought which first came to me back in the early 1970s when I was going back and forth to Londonderry. I emphasise this by quoting from paragraph 3.119 on page 46 of the principal conclusions of the Saville report, which refers to,

“allegations that Martin McGuinness, at that time the Adjutant of the Derry Brigade or Command of the Provisional IRA”—

I observe in parenthesis that that is a terrorist organisation—

“had engaged in paramilitary activity during the day. In the end we were left in some doubt as to his movements on the day”.

The paragraph goes on to say that,

“he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this”.

We can imagine what would have become of the career of my right honourable friend Mr Michael Gove had a judicial inquiry found that during an illegal demonstration in favour of free schools he was probably armed with a sub-machine gun, and that it was possible he might have fired it. It is unlikely that he would today be the Secretary of State for Education. But we have no need to imagine the fate of Mr McGuinness: he is the Minister for education in part of this kingdom, in Northern Ireland. It seems that there are different ways of ordering our affairs in those two parts of the kingdom.

When I asked a little while ago if there would be an inquiry into the murders at the Grand Hotel, Brighton 26 years ago, my noble friend Lord Shutt told me:

“The Government have no plans to hold a public inquiry in relation to the terrorist attack on The Grand Hotel, Brighton, in October 1984. As the noble Lord will be aware, there was a police investigation following the attack and one man was subsequently convicted of offences relating to the bombing”.—[Official Report, 28/6/10; col. WA216.]

One man; but we all know that that one man did not decide to do this on his own. He did not go out to buy the explosives and the timers on his own. He did not finance the operation on his own. He did not think of it on his own. Many of us have suspicions about who was in charge of what we know—because they owned up to it—was an IRA/Sinn Fein operation. Why was it so important to inquire at such cost and such time into what happened, and who was responsible for what happened, at Londonderry, but so important not to uncover the truth about who was responsible for what happened at Brighton?

I end as I began. There are different standards for Northern Ireland and the rest of this kingdom. While those different standards exist, we will never find long-lasting and true peace in Northern Ireland. The inquiry began by adopting the title of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. I fear that that adoption of the very language of those who set out to break the law and confront the forces of the law underlines my view of the difference in our standards.

It would not take long or cost much to establish who was behind the murders at Brighton—or indeed those at Claudy or Omagh, I suspect. IRA/Sinn Fein have claimed responsibility in some of those cases, and I understand that the identities of those who commanded the terrorist organisation at relevant times are well known to the authorities. Surely they could be invited to defend themselves against the suspicion that it was they who procured those bombings, not least that at Brighton. Or is it that the deaths at Brighton count for less than those at Londonderry? Or is it as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, might imagine—that the Queen’s soldiers are sitting ducks for inquiries and the members of the Army Council of Sinn Fein/IRA are, like the godfathers of the Mafia, not just too well connected and too powerful to be brought to justice but too important for the truth about them to be not merely known but to be published?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, it has been said on a number of occasions in quoting the Saville report today that Bloody Sunday was a personal tragedy for the victims and indeed for their friends and families, a social and political catastrophe for all the people of Northern Ireland and a military and political disaster for the British Army. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, has rightly made that crystal clear. I am not at all convinced, though, that had his report come out and been greeted or responded to by the Prime Minister with a carefully crafted response pointing up all the difficulties of the time, the pressures that the Army was under and so on, there would have been any transformational outcome from the expenditure of this enormous amount of money and long period of time.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, as did my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven in a wonderful maiden speech, it was the Prime Minister’s speech that was transformational for the people in Derry. As I listened to it myself, I was reminded very much of the remarkable speech that Barack Obama made on racism during his presidential campaign, where he tore up his carefully crafted speech and wrote something that was passionate, human and engaging with the problem. That is what the Prime Minister did: he engaged passionately in a committed way, understanding quite deeply the pain that was involved for all concerned, and he gave a complete, total and absolute apology. To me, that is what was transformational.

To say that the Saville report was crucial and positive is not to say that the inquiry is the only way that things could have been done, nor is it to say that expenditure of almost £200 million over 12 years was necessary to reach such an outcome. I find it difficult to see how it was necessary to spend a great deal more than South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was dealing with the pain of the whole period of apartheid. Whether that was the only and absolutely necessary way of dealing with the problem is the issue that I wish to address this evening. Frankly, I do not believe that the expenditure was necessary and I think that we need to learn from our experience. However, that is not to say that what we have gone through has not been importantly transformational or that the outcome of the Saville inquiry—the report itself and the judgments on it—was not absolutely right, crystal clear and extremely important. For me, that is not the issue.

As has been pointed out already, there are limitations to any such judicial inquiry. Let me give just one example without referring at all to the wider political context. On 9 June this year, the historical inquiries team published another of its many reports. The report investigates the killing of 41 year-old William McGreanery, who was shot by a British solider in September 1971, substantially in advance of Bloody Sunday. Although the RUC’s Chief Superintendent Frank Lagan in Londonderry had advised that the British soldier involved should be prosecuted for murder, the then Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, Sir Basil Kelly—indeed, he was the last such Attorney-General until the recent appointment—said no. It was said:

“If soldier A was guilty of any crime in this case, it would be manslaughter and not murder. Soldier A whether he acted wrongly or not, was at all times acting in the course of his duty and I cannot see how the malice, express or implied, necessary to constitute murder could be applied to his conduct”.

There is a case to be made that that ruling—entirely inadvertently, I am sure—might have created a sense among young British soldiers at the time that they enjoyed an element of impunity if they were acting in the course of their duty. Such a case could be made. All I want to point out is that that would have been outwith the remit of the Saville inquiry, yet wholly relevant to understanding how the events of the time came about.

The key to understanding the importance of Bloody Sunday and the greater need for an inquiry into those events than into many other circumstances is the profound symbolic significance of Bloody Sunday. Next year, we will recall the tragedy of the sinking of the “Titanic”, with the loss of many hundreds of lives. The fact that we will not remember many other ships that sank with terrible loss of life means not that those who died on the “Titanic” were more important than those who died on other ships but that that tragedy was, in the words of my noble friend and countryman Lord Mawhinney, iconic. To give a perhaps more relevant example, those who died in the Sharpeville massacre were not somehow more important than others who died, but there was an iconic or symbolic significance to their deaths that somehow came to embody all sorts of other things. That kind of significance is by no means unique. Indeed, my friend Professor Vamik Volkan, who has looked at many areas of trouble and conflict throughout the world, has observed that, in almost every situation where such conflict goes on for a long period, there is what he calls a “chosen trauma”. He does not mean that the trauma is chosen in a conscious way but that there is some traumatic experience that comes to sum up and express, almost in a couple of words, the awfulness of people’s experience.

The need for an inquiry into Bloody Sunday was not because there needed to be an individual inquiry into every other case to achieve what was necessary but rather because the inquiry emblemised something. However, the inquiry could emblemise that only if the British Government then responded with true regret and deep apology for what happened. This is why it is not only the inquiry that we need to understand, but the response that it evinced.

Then there is the question of whether this inquiry is of the kind that should be embarked on. There has been almost a suggestion that if the Government say that there should be no more open-ended inquiries, there should be no more inquiries of any kind. It seems to me that that is not the question. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has pointed out that there are at least four institutions that undertake inquiries: the HET, the PSNI, the ombudsman and the coroner. There is no proposition to get rid of the investigative capacity of the PSNI, the ombudsman or the coroner, so of course investigations will continue to take place. The question is: how do we deal with the legacy of the past, which we all desperately hope will not return under the pressure from dissident republicans? How we deal with the legacy of the past is no easy matter.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, has experience of how difficult it is, no matter how much time you allow and how much you consult, to come up with a mechanism or device that deals with the past. First, it is not always possible to cure and redeem all of the past. As a psychiatrist, I found it frustrating at times that people seemed to accept that if someone had been physically damaged by having lost a leg, it was not replaceable, but if there was a psychological problem, there must be some way of resolving it. That is not true. Some people are emotionally destroyed and it is not possible to repair the damage. That can be true of communities as well. We should not always assume that everything can be resolved.

Secondly, in trying to resolve things we should be a little modest about what we can do. That something needs to be done does not necessarily mean that the Government should be doing it. There are already investigative agencies that need the resources to continue to investigate the past. They are continuing to do so, as has been made clear. However, when we talk about the victims and the need for closure, how much resource has been given to assist the emotional and support needs of individuals and their families? I tabled a Question in your Lordships’ House for the previous Government, to ask whether they had looked at the financial consequences of giving help and succour—psychologically and emotionally—to the victims of the Troubles. Had they looked at any other part of the world where this had been necessary? Had they looked at the financial consequences of dealing with these things for the health service in Northern Ireland? The answer was no, they had not looked at it at all. They had focused entirely on legal devices for addressing these problems. I am in no way against legal devices; I just do not think they are the only way of dealing with our problems. There are human, psychological, relational and emotional ways of dealing with these things that have been hugely under-resourced in Northern Ireland.

Thirdly, we should not underestimate the importance of the political process in helping people to get over the experiences of the past. It really does make a difference to many people to see former enemies working together for the benefit of the community. Many people then feel that whatever the pain they suffered, at least the community has somehow moved on. That responsibility is a heavy and burdensome one on those who are currently Ministers in the devolved Assembly. They must show that political progress can work, and that relationships built now from the ashes of the past 30 years in some fashion redeem all the misery that was created. I hope they appreciate and understand that.

I have already mentioned that there are other institutions that can undertake inquiries. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, has pointed out that in other countries they do not depend solely on lawyers to assist them when it comes to inquiring into the past. There are others, which have other contributions to make. Perhaps we have pushed it too far. I am still, though perhaps not for much longer, a member of the Independent Monitoring Commission. Why was it created? It was created precisely because we discovered the limits of the judicial process in resolving problems. It was given powers quite outwith the normal powers to address some of the questions that needed to be dealt with.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not recognise the extraordinary disproportionality between the size and the sheer resources devoted to the Londonderry inquiry as opposed to the paucity of resources devoted to inquiries where the victims are on the other side of the political divide?

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I entirely understand that. I also appreciate that even in comparison with the paucity of the money devoted to those legal inquiries, the amount of money devoted to caring for victims’ emotional needs is pitiable in my experience of working with some of these people. My concern is precisely that we focus too much on judicial inquiries of any kind.

I have noticed in the recent past that people in Northern Ireland—former journalists, academics, victims on all sides, former paramilitaries, those who have lost loved ones, former security force members—have started to come together to tell each other their stories away from the limelight and reporting and with no support from government at all. I am rather more hopeful that that kind of rebuilding and knitting together of relationships among ordinary people in Northern Ireland may do more to heal our broken society than any further major government interventions other than the normal, proper due process of the administration of law done with a human face and a human heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, it has been an excellent debate. I welcome the wealth of experience and knowledge that noble Lords have brought to this serious and sensitive subject.

I thought that I knew why most people were here today and now I know why everyone is here. It is because in the Chamber today are those who have had a significant involvement at ministerial level, those who are resident and involved in Northern Ireland, those who represent, even personally, the victims, those who represent the Army and those who represent the law. Tone is important and there has been a splendid, measured tone.

Under the counter here, I have the 10 volumes of the Bloody Sunday report. I am delighted that no one has said, “What about that comment on page 538 in volume 10?”. Happily, they have not been needed and I am grateful for that.

I have heard noble Lords use the phrase, “It’s time to move on”. However, I have also heard, not necessarily in these words, “There are a lot of people still searching for the truth”. We have to mesh these together. If the search for the truth can be concluded for most people—I do not know about everybody—it gives the help needed to move on.

I made notes on all noble Lords’ contributions and I shall do my best to give some response to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who until May had responsibility in this House for matters relating to Northern Ireland, asked about further inquiries and what is still to happen—it was raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. The Government are acutely aware of the sensitivity of a number of the contentious legacy cases. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is endeavouring to meet all the families concerned in the cases mentioned by noble Lords. He has already met Omagh and Ballymurphy families and intends to meet the Finucane family shortly—in fact, he may have met them already. He will carefully consider their views. The Government’s response to the report and to other recent high-profile cases, such as Claudy and Billy Wright, demonstrates that they are taking seriously their responsibilities for the past. There is no question of their hiding from the truth.

Many speakers have mentioned the number of lives lost—the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was one of them. We are not supposed to show exhibits in the House of Lords, but I have with me a book called Lost Lives. I can quote from it. It is nearly three inches thick. It sets out the number of deaths in the period from 11 June 1966 to the end of the Troubles—8 May 2006 is the date that the book goes to. There were 3,712 deaths. It is quite interesting to see the disposition of them. The breakdown is: civilians 2,087, police 509, Army 503, republican paramilitaries 395, loyalist paramilitaries 167 and undefined 59. Those are the numbers, but the remarkable thing about looking at the book is that from 11 June 1966 to the date of Bloody Sunday, 30 January 1972, there were 242 deaths. That is enough. There were 13 deaths at Bloody Sunday, but the balance between 256 and 3,712 is since bloody Sunday. We will not know and we cannot rewrite these things, but had it not been for Bloody Sunday, could it be that there would have been somewhat fewer than 3,400 deaths since? That is an important point.

We all pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for his work with Denis Bradley particularly, and the work that he has done over many years in Northern Ireland ministering to the people and playing such a special role there. As one of the earlier speakers said, setting the tone was very important. He mentioned open-ended inquiries, but it is a matter of finding a way to replace the open-ended inquiry. He raised the problems of such inquiries and mentioned the possibility, as he did in his paper, of a legacy commission or truth and reconciliation commission. He also mentioned getting the people at Stormont to agree. That is something that many people have been addressing in terms of the Government here. Much is made of pursuing things that are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government. Some things are joint matters but many things are now their responsibility.

At first, I did not understand the entry into our ranks of the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, but we soon found out. Marriage brought him an interest in Northern Ireland, with his wife from Omagh. He also referred to the HET, peace and Martin Niemöller in Northern Ireland, showing the interest of the church in what has gone on in that place.

The noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, was concerned about healing the past in Omagh. We must look at healing. Healing really needs an answer.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was the first noble Lord to raise Widgery and then relate that to the position of Saville and the change. For many people, that is why we are here. We had to have the Saville report because of the Widgery report. That link is important because Widgery was quick and cheap, but it did not do the job. It was because of the concern that that job was not done properly that we are here having this debate today, following a report published earlier in the year.

Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, to money. There is of course the police reserve. It is right to raise the question of resources for the police. I cannot say anything about settlements and how that is going to go—that is something for next week. Nevertheless, the Government are well aware of the need for resources and, indeed, there is the fact that there is the police reserve.

My noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton referred to lessons learnt by the Army in peacekeeping operations. As the Chief of General Staff said in the light of the Saville report, the ways in which the Army is trained and how it works and operates have all changed. The Armed Forces have detailed and formalised procedures to ensure that operational experience is examined and lessons are identified so that gaps are addressed, mistakes are not repeated and good practice is continued. Lessons were identified following deployments in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, operations in Afghanistan have benefited from lessons identified as a result of operations in Iraq.

With regard to military training for peacekeeping operations, I am advised that this is kept under regular review and tailored to the individual circumstances of each operation. Even during operations, the approach can be adapted to take account of experiences on the ground. There were and are significant differences between those internal security operations conducted in Northern Ireland and those counter-insurgency peacekeeping operations undertaken in Iraq and Afghanistan. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, mentioned the defence review, which will be announced next consideration in ensuring that we have dispensed capabilities that matched the task that we have planned to perform.

The noble Lord also raised the point about the £191 million spent on Saville and referred to what might be the budget of Derry City Council. I can say that the council’s present budget is £36 million for the year. I just caution the noble Lord a little because, although £191 million is a lot, £36 million is a lot. The comparison is not the same for someone living in Londonderry/Derry as it would be for any English person, because in Northern Ireland housing and education are not devolved to councils, unlike in local government here, for example.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, is not in his place, but he was concerned about the Army. I can understand the old Army man speaking in that way, but the report is the report—and sadly wrong was done and it has had to go into that report.

The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, was phrased in terms of “on the one hand, on the other”. I understand the historic perspective and understand his contribution in relation to where we started, before anything to do with the Saville report. But this is the dilemma of the report. It is the best effort; it is a summary and consideration of evidence, about which a view is taken. We are in a situation where one could say, “This is what somebody said to the police 38 years ago, this is what they wrote or said to Widgery, this is what they wrote or said to Saville, and they do not all quite match. Then this is what somebody else said and then there is another witness”. On balance, a view is taken, which is what has been written.

One thing about the report is that it was indeed incredibly interesting to read it page by page, but eventually it got monotonous in one sense—I hate to say that—in terms of the business of this view and that view but then, on balance, that is now what we come to. I understand how the noble Lord, Lord Bew, comes to his view of “on the one hand, on the other hand”, but the work has been done and we know what the conclusion has been.

I was delighted to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Macdonald. Again, he clearly had the understanding about the difference between terrorist violence on the one hand and violence perpetrated by the state on the other. It came absolutely clearly through that speech and we look forward to his future contributions.

When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, spoke, I wrote down “inquiry fatigue … stop the inquiries” as his cause. This is the dilemma of wanting to move on, yet people are not ready to move on because, while they are not asking for multimillions, they do not feel that they have had satisfaction from some process or another. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to the Written Answer that I sent him. What the noble Lord might not understand is that it was the third Answer that I eventually signed off. However, he mentioned—

[Lord Tebbit]

Were the other two any better?

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

The noble Lord got the third one. He does not want to know about the first and second ones. Reference was made to the private all-party briefings. Those will commence; I spoke to the Secretary of State about them and he is happy to come along. We will endeavour to arrange one of those meetings before too long.

I want to say this about the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He has a personal position as a victim and because his concern is about an event in Brighton it is not covered by any procedures such as the HET. There is very much a serious case. It was interesting that he followed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, with an entirely opposite view, because it was that of the victim saying, “No, I can’t yet move on”. I would like to find a way of moving on. I believe that there ought to be a way—I do not know what it might be—in which even the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, can eventually move on, because he feels that he has had some satisfaction. In one sense—

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, it is all about tone and using the right words. I am trying my best. I do not want any hurt in terms of what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, might feel. I used that example only because in one sense his was a personal contribution, which leads on directly to a policy point. That which is in place to address what many believe to be hurt does not appear to be in place as far as the noble Lord is concerned, because of an event that took place in England. The Government should look at that, and I will take it back to the Minister. I do not believe that anything is in place at the moment, so in my view there is a policy point which an endeavour should be made to address.

[Lord Tebbit]

Will the noble Lord allow me to explain for a moment, please? I am grateful to him. The point that I sought to make is that it seems to many of us that the Government and the previous Government were extremely anxious not to allow to be known to the general public with certainty the names of those who organised that particular attempt to murder the Prime Minister of this country.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I do not believe that that is necessarily the case; that is the noble Lord’s view. I do not think I am able to comment any further, and I will leave the point there.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and the tremendous work that has taken place. He could see as a lawyer himself the incredible service that a fellow lawyer had performed over 12 years. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, made reference to costly inquiries and the concern that that cost could turn people away from an inquiry when one was needed. I have to say that the words I used were, “No more open-ended inquiries”, and that is important. I was pleased to hear his own perception of the history in Northern Ireland. Much of the first of the 10 volumes is about the history. I was looking at it myself and thinking about Captain O’Neill, James Chichester-Clark and Brian Faulkner and the way in which the more liberal—with a small “l”—Lord O’Neill, as he eventually became, was replaced at Stormont. Yet at the same time in London—this is why it is important to see what was going on at the time—there was concern that somehow Northern Ireland should embrace other people. There was an effort to get other people in, but other unionist people did not want that to happen. That in itself means that I do not see the idea, which comes out in the report, that there was collusion in what happened. The London view at that time was to try to get a Stormont that was more inclusive, embracing and so forth.

I think I am at the point where I ought to call it a day in terms of this debate. To sum up: the challenge now is for us all to ensure that the past is dealt with in a sensitive manner that allows Northern Ireland, as has been said, to move forward in a genuinely shared future. We must all work to ensure that hope and reconciliation continue to overcome hatred and fear, and that those who would seek to undermine the progress that has been made will never succeed in doing so. Hope is the greatest weapon that we hold against those who peddle fear, and it was that hope that was so powerfully embodied by the recent success of Londonderry/Derry, the city by the Foyle, in being named the 2013 City of Culture. We must all acknowledge the strides forward that Northern Ireland has taken. As we look back on the terrible events of 38 years ago, we must be thankful that Northern Ireland is now a very different place.

In conclusion, the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, has—to use a quote that has been adopted by the families—set the truth free. In doing so, the report has, I believe, helped to close a long-running and painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s troubled past.