Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on security in Northern Ireland of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Following the outcome of the 2010 spending review, it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide how funds are allocated to the Northern Ireland Departments. It will be for the Northern Ireland Justice Minister and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in the first instance, to negotiate the PSNI budget with the Executive. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that we will protect the people of our country from the terrorist threat with every means at our disposal.

[Gemma Doyle]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response. He will appreciate that people in Northern Ireland and throughout the UK will be concerned about the impact of spending cuts on peace and security in Northern Ireland. Can he assure the House that the comprehensive spending review will not impact on front-line community policing in Northern Ireland? That is something that the Minister stopped short of saying in response to an earlier question.

[Mr Paterson]

We have been absolutely clear that we will stand by Northern Ireland. We will do what is necessary to bear down on that threat, but the first port of call is for the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable to negotiate with the Executive on the very substantial allocation of public money that has been granted to them in the spending round.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The Select Committee on Northern Ireland met the assistant commissioner of the Garda two days ago, and he assured us that in spite of the financial difficulties in Ireland they would continue to police the border, in particular, in the same way. He said that there would be absolutely no reduction in their efforts. Can the Secretary of State give us the same assurance today?

[Mr Paterson]

Emphatically yes. We have exceptional co-operation with the Garda, and I should like to congratulate them on their seizure of a significant amount of armaments at Dunleer woods in County Louth. Emphatically yes: we will work extremely closely with them and match their effort.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the deteriorating security situation in parts of Northern Ireland due to the dissident threat. Will he be open to an approach, should it be required, for additional resources to deal with that threat as it materialises over the winter months?

[Mr Paterson]

We have been clear, from the early negotiations that I had with the shadow Secretary of State, when he was Secretary of State, that we would endorse the very substantial policing settlement that the previous Government negotiated with the Northern Ireland Executive. That was quite clear. Should there be security pressure, and should the security position deteriorate, it would be right for the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable to come to us and ask for contributions from the national reserve.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

5. What his most recent assessment is of the level of threat posed by terrorist groups in Northern Ireland.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

7. What his most recent assessment is of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe. We are not complacent, but I am pleased to tell the House that this year, following eight further arrests this morning, there have been 195 arrests and 71 persons have been charged with terrorist offences. That compares with 106 arrests and 17 charges in the whole of 2009. I commend the security forces for their continued successes in frustrating the efforts of residual terrorist groups. The coalition Government are committed to continuing to promote peace, stability and economic prosperity in Northern Ireland, and standing firmly behind the agreements negotiated and the institutions that they established.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The national security strategy has highlighted the fact that there have been 37 separate attacks this year, so the threat from residual terrorist groups remains high. What steps is he taking to combat that threat?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. We have taken this to the highest level of Government. We presented a paper to the National Security Council, and as a result of that, the threat from Northern Ireland has been put in tier 1 in the national security strategy.

[Ian Murray]

The latest Independent Monitoring Commission report highlights the continuing involvement of dissident republicans in very serious levels of criminal activity. Will the Minister assure the House that all resources will be made available to ensure that that threat does not continue?

[Mr Paterson]

I repeat that we are working extremely closely with the devolved Administration and the Dublin Government on bearing down on this threat, and we will do what is necessary.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the deep anger among all sections of the community in Northern Ireland at the growing level of attacks by paramilitaries—with, indeed, activity on both sides, but particularly among dissident republicans? People are looking for action to be taken, and for co-operation between the agencies for which he is responsible and the Northern Ireland Executive to deal with this problem urgently.

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to make that comment. That is why we produced a substantial paper for the National Security Council, which was discussed at the highest level; and that is why we are working so closely with the devolved Administration and the Justice Minister, to whom I spoke this morning, and the Government in Dublin. We are determined to work at all levels to end this security problem.

[Mr Dodds]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and acknowledge the work that he is doing in terms of the tier 1 level of threat assessment in Northern Ireland. However, the fact that the recent bomb find at East Midlands airport happened on the same day as a bomb find at Belfast City airport shows the level of threat against citizens right across the United Kingdom. Can we be assured that while the threat of al-Qaeda is a priority, the threat in Northern Ireland is also treated as a top priority?

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that these threats affect us all in the United Kingdom. That is why the threat from Northern Ireland has been placed in the No. 1 category—in tier 1.

[Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an unambiguous undertaking before the Hillsborough Castle agreement that the previous Government’s financial arrangements for the devolution of policing and justice would be upheld. In relation to the security situation, this unequivocally included a commitment that the Northern Ireland Executive would have access to the reserve. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he continues to stand by that commitment, without any new conditions being imposed by the Treasury?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I have said this already, but I am happy to look him in the eye and repeat it. Should the security situation deteriorate, then—according to the agreement that the previous Government, in which he was Secretary of State, made with the then Executive—the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable have the right to approach the Government with a clear strategy on security grounds in order to call on the national reserve.

[Mr Woodward]

I am grateful for that reply. We all note the decision to raise the threat level here in Great Britain, and the Secretary of State can be assured that the Opposition fully support the decision to address the problems created by that threat. Given the level of recent attacks in Northern Ireland, including the recent use of a hand grenade, and given the need for the response to be measured, proportionate and joined up, would a request by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to meet the Prime Minister as soon as possible be fully supported by the Secretary of State?

[Mr Paterson]

The Prime Minister made regular visits to Northern Ireland when he was Leader of the Opposition. He met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister then, to discuss a broad range of issues. He intends to go back to Northern Ireland, and at that time he will have the opportunity to discuss matters with them. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring specifically to the budget settlement, it is appropriate that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister first discuss that with me, having done their utmost to come to an agreement and consensus in the Executive on a budget for the substantial funds that have been allocated to them in this spending round.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

6. What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the implications for Northern Ireland of the provisions of part 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the reasons for the recent increase in the level of dissident violence in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

This violence is a direct response to the continued political progress in Northern Ireland. Those people are outdated and backward-looking. All that they have to offer is to destabilise the peace process and disadvantage the people of Northern Ireland, but they will not succeed. The Government take the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland extremely seriously. There have been 39 attacks so far this year, compared with 22 throughout 2009.

[Patrick Mercer]

I heard what the Secretary of State had to say earlier about the operations of the police in the Republic. Can he also give me some assurance that there is intelligence sharing between the Northern Irish Government and that in Dublin?

[Mr Paterson]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and for his interest in Northern Ireland affairs. I do not think I can give a better example than the fact that the current Chief Constable always had good relations with his neighbour when he was chief constable of Leicestershire, but has said that his relations with Fachtna Murphy, the Garda commissioner, are even better. I should like publicly to pay tribute to Fachtna Murphy, who is, sadly, retiring at the end of the year. He has been a great friend of Northern Ireland. The collaboration between the Garda and the PSNI is at an exceptional level, and I look forward to helping it continue.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent series of dissident republican operations in my constituency, including the bomb at a railway bridge and a previous bomb that almost killed three local children. Does he share the Chief Constable’s current assessment of the levels of resources and manpower available to the PSNI?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful for that question. I am also pleased to send on my sympathies to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who have been subject to such intolerable attacks, which, thankfully, have not caused death or injury. Last week the Chief Constable said:

“We are absolutely putting huge resources back in, we are going to sustain that next year and the year after until those responsible are brought to justice or they can be persuaded to give up.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effects on the Northern Ireland fishing fleet of the operation of EU legislation on working time; and if he will make a statement.

Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I am pleased to announce the appointment of four new Commissioners to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Fidelma Carolan, Milton Kerr, Stephen McIlveen and Liam Maskey will take up office on 8 November 2010.

The Equality Commission is a key institution of the Belfast agreement and plays a vital role in protecting and promoting equality for all members of the diverse society in Northern Ireland. The Commission is now facing new challenges, not least in fulfilling its remit in a testing economic environment.

I am confident that the four new Commissioners bring a wealth of knowledge, skills and understanding, helping the Commission to meet the challenges ahead and build on its considerable achievements over the last 11 years.

Billy Wright Inquiry

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

On 14 September 2010 I made a statement to this House, publishing the report of the Billy Wright inquiry. The report made three specific recommendations that should be applied to the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS).

In my statement of 14 September, I informed the House that I intended to meet with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, David Ford, in the week following the publication of the inquiry’s report to discuss the recommendations made by Lord MacLean and his panel. In addition to this meeting I have also discussed the matter with the Justice Minister more recently. Although prisons issues are now, in the main, a devolved matter, it is right that I keep the House informed of progress in regard to the report’s recommendations.

I have now received correspondence from the Justice Minister updating me on progress made in relation to the recommendations and providing me with documentation relating to NIPS’ response to the recommendations made in the inquiry’s report. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

To summarise, in response to the first recommendation relating to the retention of records by NIPS, I am advised that steps have been taken in recent years to provide assurances regarding the retention and disposal of hard copy and electronic files. Details can be found in annex B of the documentation placed in the Library of the House. I am content that this recommendation has been satisfactorily complied with, as I believe is the Justice Minister.

In response to the second recommendation requiring NIPS to satisfy themselves that any relevant lessons from HMP Maze have been learned for HMP Maghaberry, the summary of a recent audit undertaken by the NIPS, and the steps being taken as a result, can be found at annex C of the documentation placed in the Library of the House. Remedial activities will include both physical infrastructure, where it is operationally required, and updating of certain policies and guidance.

The third recommendation invites the Justice Minister to consider whether a process similar to the Patten Commission on policing for Northern Ireland might pave the way for radical change in the way NIPS is managed and how its industrial relations are conducted. I am informed by the Justice Minister that his statement to the Assembly on 21 June 2010—the text of which can be found at annex D of the documentation placed in the Library of the House—relating to a fundamental review of the conditions of detention, management and oversight of all prisons, carried out by an independent team, fulfils the panel’s third recommendation. The Justice Minister also advises me that a strategic efficiency and effectiveness programme is being taken forward by the senior management of NIPS in consultation with the three staff associations. Annex E of the documentation placed in the Library of the House summarises the remit of this programme.

I am grateful to the Justice Minister and the Northern Ireland Prison Service for providing me with this information and I commend their promptness in addressing these important recommendations.

Independent Monitoring Commission Report

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I have received the 25th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC), on levels of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. The IMC conclude that dissident groups continue to pose a substantial and potentially lethal threat, particularly against members of the security forces. I am today laying the report before Parliament.

The Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) was established jointly by the British and Irish Governments in 2004 to help in the process of making the transition in Northern Ireland to a peaceful society and stable and inclusive devolved Government in Northern Ireland. In paragraph 1.5 of their 25th report the Commission refer to comments in previous reports on the

“implications for the continuation of the IMC of the peace process drawing to a close and more normal arrangements for security and the administration of justice taking over, since when we have had the devolution of policing and justice”.

Since they were formally established in 2004 they have prepared 20 reports on paramilitary activity and five reports on security normalisation in Northern Ireland. Over that period there have been significant changes in the political and security landscape in Northern Ireland.

In July 2005 the Provisional IRA announced an end to their armed campaign and in September 2005 the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) reported that the Provisional IRA had decommissioned all the arms within its control. In May 2007 the Ulster Volunteer Force made a statement renouncing violence and in June 2009 the Ulster Defence Association also issued a statement announcing that the struggle had ended. On 25 February 2010 the IICD reported to the British and Irish Governments that it had overseen the decommissioning of all the arms within the control of the UDA, UVF, Official IRA and the Irish National Liberation Army.

The Government’s security normalisation programme, including the conclusion of the military’s Operation Banner, was completed and reported on in the IMC’s 16th report.

In parallel with this programme of security normalisation, we have seen the political process firmly embedded in Northern Ireland. Devolution was restored on 8 May 2007 and devolved Government has now been up and running for the longest continuous period since 1972. Locally elected politicians from Northern Ireland are now responsible for making decisions about the issues that really matter to the people of Northern Ireland—jobs, health, education and the environment—and since 12 April 2010, policing and justice. In their last several reports the IMC have consistently assessed that, with the exception of some residual terrorist groups, the leaderships of paramilitary groups remain committed to the political process and to transforming their organisations.

The IMC have played a crucial part in supporting and enabling the historic changes that we have seen in Northern Ireland over the last 12 years. Although there remain those who have rejected peace and politics and who actively work to undermine it, Northern Ireland has made the transition to stable, local democracy and the job of the IMC is nearing completion. The two Governments have, therefore, asked the IMC to prepare one more final report on their work, including lessons learned. After that, we will bring the IMC arrangements to an end. I would like to place on record my thanks to the IMC for their work and their contribution to the developments that have taken place over the last six years.

There is a continuing public interest in ensuring that the public are informed about the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism. Once we have received and considered the IMC’s final report, the British and Irish Governments will do what is necessary to ensure that need is met.

Bloody Sunday Inquiry (Report)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

This debate follows the publication of the report on 15 June and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s statement in this House in response. I should like to thank the tribunal for its report. I have read it in full, and it is clearly a remarkable piece of work.

Let me reiterate the Government’s clear position on the report. Lord Saville’s conclusions are shocking. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we do not honour all those members of the armed forces who bravely upheld the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.

I am sure that hon. Members are familiar with many of the conclusions in the report, but I should put on record again some of the tribunal’s key findings. Lord Saville found a

“serious and widespread loss of fire discipline”

by members of support company of the Parachute Regiment who entered the Bogside,

“as a result of an order...which should not have been given.”

He found that

“despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers...none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers.”

He also found that many of the soldiers

“knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing”.

In some of the most shocking sections of the report, Lord Saville concludes that some of those killed or injured were fleeing or going to the assistance of others. The report says that Patrick Doherty was shot while

“crawling…away from the soldiers”.

It refers to Alexander Nash, who was

“hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to...tend his son”.

Lord Saville records that James Wray was shot, in all probability,

“when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground.”

For those looking for statements of innocence, the report is clear that

“none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting.”

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. It is clear from the tribunal’s unequivocal conclusions that some members of our armed forces acted wrongly.

I reiterate the Government’s apology for the events of that day. The Government are deeply sorry for what happened.

Just as the report is clear in its conclusions on the unjustifiable actions that took place in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday, so, too, is it clear in its other findings. There is no suggestion in the report that there was any premeditation or conspiracy by the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Government or senior members of the armed forces. Lord Saville said that there was no evidence that the authorities tolerated or encouraged

“the use of unjustified lethal force.”

The process surrounding the report has been the subject of much controversy. None of us could have anticipated that the inquiry would take 12 years or cost nearly £192 million. Our views on that are well documented, but I firmly believe that it is right that our main focus now is not on the controversies surrounding the process, but on the substance of the report’s conclusions.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I concur with my right hon. Friend’s points. I have seen at first hand the sacrifice of our security forces when serving in Northern Ireland, and their excellent work in preventing a difficult situation from getting much worse. Does my right hon. Friend agree that he should do everything in his power to stop the report being used by one side against another? It is more important to move forward and make progress in the Province in future.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which I endorse. Lord Saville and his colleagues go to some length in the report to say that they do not pass judgment and that the inquiry was not a court of law. They were simply trying to establish the facts. My hon. Friend is right that we should use the facts in the report to see how we can move forward and look to a better future. I will deal with that later.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for taking a second intervention so quickly. Why on earth was the advice of the most senior Royal Ulster Constabulary officer in the Londonderry area, Chief Superintendent Frank Lagan, ignored? Does the Secretary of State believe, or is there evidence to show, that if his wise counsel had been followed, the appalling events of that day could have been avoided?

[Mr Paterson]

The hon. Lady touches on one of the many terrible “what ifs”. The report shows so many turns, where, if decisions had gone the other way, the event might not have happened. She refers to Chief Superintendent Frank Lagan, who was the local senior RUC commander. She knows from her close family experience the huge debt that we owe all those in the RUC. Interestingly, Chief Superintendent Lagan said that, despite the ban on all parades and marches at that time, he thought that the march should go ahead all the way through to Guildhall square. He was overruled by Sir Graham Shillington in discussion, as the report states, with senior Army officers, who decided that it would be better if the march was turned down Rossville street. The hon. Lady touches on a poignant moment, when perhaps, if the advice had been taken, events could have been different. Of course, the advice could have been wrong. All we can do is accept the facts as they are presented by Lord Saville, and see what we can learn for the future.

We should reflect not just on the report, but on the reaction to Lord Saville’s conclusions and the Prime Minister’s statement. The whole House will have seen the memorable pictures broadcast around the world showing the response of the families and crowds in the Guildhall square in Derry. The families of those killed and those injured had fought a long and determined campaign over 38 years to prove the innocence of their loved ones.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House wants to join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the families for the dignity and resilience that they have shown over so many years. I first met them officially to discuss the publication of the Saville report in April 2008—some two-and-a-half years ago. I promised them then that, although the report had to come to Parliament first, they would not be disadvantaged in gaining access to it or being able to comment on it on the day. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for honouring the many complex arrangements that my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) and I drew up at the time to ensure that the families could have the benefit of as much access as possible to the report on the day. I thank him for honouring those commitments when he took up his position.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for his kind comments. I pay tribute to his work over the years as Minister of State for Northern Ireland. He is still fondly remembered by the people there for all his good work.

I would like to take the opportunity to record my gratitude for the hard work of my officials and the Department in successfully managing the report’s publication. As the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) said, we built on some of the plans left by my predecessor. I met the families and discussed the matter in detail. The publication was a major international event, with 419 press passes issued for the Guildhall square alone. It is also right to draw hon. Members’ attention to other responses to the report that received less coverage, but which are none the less important in illustrating the broad acceptance that Lord Saville’s report received.

The leaders of the three main Protestant churches in Ireland made a symbolically important visit to the Bogside shortly after publication. The First Minister, Peter Robinson, publicly indicated his acceptance of Lord Saville’s findings. Senior military figures, including the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, and the former Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, joined the Prime Minister in his apology for the events of Bloody Sunday.

I want to make it absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did, that Bloody Sunday was not the defining story of the Army’s service in Northern Ireland. Between 1969 and 2007, more than 250,000 people served in Operation Banner—the longest continuous operation in British military history.

Our armed forces displayed immense courage, dedication and restraint in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. We should not forget that more than 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives, and many thousands more were injured, for that cause. Nor should we forget that the security situation in Northern Ireland had been deteriorating steadily since 1969. As Lord Saville outlines in volume I of the report, those who lost their lives included two RUC officers—Sergeant Peter Gilgunn and Constable David Montgomery were killed by the IRA three days before Bloody Sunday. They were the first police officers killed in the city during the troubles.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The point that the right hon. Gentleman is highlighting is extremely important. It is right to put on record our remembrance of, and gratitude for, the service and sacrifice of so many in the armed forces and police who served over the years in Northern Ireland and who continue to serve. That is why most of us are today wearing the poppy with pride.

May I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on this? Many people in Northern Ireland feel that while there is a very close focus on this one major incident, for the reasons he has outlined, they have received no justice and no attention for the murder of their loved one by the IRA or paramilitaries on all sides. They want to know what the Government will do to address that.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for supporting my comments on the service of those in the security services. He is quite right that without them, the peace process would not have happened. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those who served in Northern Ireland. I will turn to the problems of resolving the past in a few moments, but I should point out now that the Historical Enquiries Team is working its way through 3,268 cases, which is valuable work.

The hurt and suffering that victims of the troubles from all parts of the community continue to feel must be recognised and acknowledged. Finding a way of dealing with the painful legacy of the past is one of the great challenges facing Northern Ireland today, as the right hon. Gentleman says. Our approach to the conclusions of reviews and reports on individual cases is clear. Where wrongdoing or failings by the state are clearly identified, the Government will accept responsibility and apologise. We have demonstrated that in our rapid responses to this report, the police ombudsman’s report on Claudy published in August, and to the Billy Wright inquiry report published in September.

More widely, there cannot, of course, be a Saville-type inquiry for each person killed during the troubles, but there are ongoing processes that are helping to provide some answers. As I just mentioned, the HET is investigating all 3,268 deaths during the troubles, including soldiers and police officers who lost their lives. The 86% satisfaction rate that the HET achieves among families who have received reports demonstrates the success it is having in helping to bring a measure of resolution.

The police ombudsman continues to investigate legacy cases and there are a number of ongoing inquests relating to deaths from the troubles. I welcome the very important work that the Northern Ireland Executive, the victims commissioners and many voluntary organisations are doing in providing health care and practical support to victims.

The future of those processes is in the hands of the devolved Administration, and for my part, I am fully supportive of the important and difficult work that the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains continues to carry out. The Government’s views on new public inquiries are, of course, well known. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries. That policy is based not solely on financial calculation. Continuing to pick out selective cases to subject to a lengthy public inquiry is not a viable approach to dealing with the legacy of a conflict in which thousands of people from all parts of the community were killed.

Nor should we be under any illusion that public inquiries provide any guarantee of satisfaction for victims’ families. The Billy Wright inquiry report showed that even an inquiry lasting six years and costing £30 million can be accused of not having answered critical questions. Many commentators pointed out that that report recorded the panel’s regret that it had no explanation of how the guns used to murder Billy Wright were smuggled into the high security Maze prison.

Our position on new inquiries is clear, but we cannot simply shut down the past. I recognise that there are no easy answers. The previous Government’s consultation on the Eames-Bradley report ended in October 2009, and this Government swiftly published the responses to that consultation in July this year. The responses clearly showed that there is little consensus currently on a wider mechanism to address the past, but we have not let that stop us continuing to listen to the views of people in Northern Ireland and to find a way forward.

My hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Minister and I have met victims groups, community organisations, academics and politicians from all parts of the community to move forward the debate on this important issue. We will continue to do so. Many different views have been expressed, but one clear theme emerges from those discussions and from the experience of existing mechanisms such as the HET—namely, the desire of the families of victims of the troubles to understand those traumatic events better. Helping families and wider society to achieve that greater understanding and closure is vital, however difficult it may be. It will require leadership from all those involved in the events of the past 40 years in Westminster, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

I plan to continue exploring ideas on the contentious issues of the past over the coming months. Our approach will remain measured, sensitive and realistic. Lord Saville’s report closes a painful chapter in Northern Ireland’s troubled history. In so doing, it makes an important contribution to helping Northern Ireland to move forward to a genuinely shared future.

Arrangements for Handling National Security

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The Government have received and welcomed the second annual report of Lord Carlile of Berriew on the operation of arrangements for handling national security matters in Northern Ireland.

The report finds the now established national security arrangements free from major structural problems, more efficient than analogous arrangements elsewhere, and in a more acceptable human rights context than anywhere comparable.

Consistent with his terms of reference, the report was submitted to both the Home Secretary, and to me.

The Home Secretary and I welcome the content of this report which I am today bringing before Parliament. I have placed copies in the House Library.

Independent Monitoring Commission (24th Report)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I have received the 24th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC). This report has been made under articles 4 and 7 of the International Agreement that established the Commission. It reports on the murder of Bobby Moffett in Belfast on 28 May 2010. I have considered the content of the report and I am today laying it before Parliament.

The IMC concludes that:

“The murder was committed by members of the UVF acting as such;

These members had sanction at central leadership level. The fact that there was no subsequent condemnation of the killing by the leadership means that the UVF has in effect adopted the consequences of the murder;

There were two main reasons for the murder and the way in which it was committed: to stop Mr Moffett’s perceived flouting of UVF authority, and to send a message to the organisation and the community that this authority was not to be challenged;

Senior leadership in the UVF could have prevented the murder had it determined to do so”.

In May 2007 the UVF issued a statement renouncing violence and committing to a process of transformation from a military to a civilian organisation. This was a major turning point for them. Last year they also took the step of decommissioning.

The IMC observes that

“the murder does not blind us to the progress the UVF has made hitherto or of itself mean that the process [of transformation] will be reversed. But it does call into question the reference in the May 2007 statement to becoming a civilian organisation and shows that when faced with what it saw as a challenge to its standing and authority, the organisation reverted to physical force”.

The IMC goes on to say that

“If this murder is to mark the end of the use of physical force it will require a more profound change of culture and attitude by the leadership and the organisation”.

The murder of Mr Moffett was brutal and shocking. The conclusions of the IMC in respect of the behaviour of the UVF leadership are a challenge to the UVF leadership to renew their determination to deliver fully on their collective commitment to transform their organisation.

Billy Wright Inquiry

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. Today I am publishing the report, which I received yesterday, of the Billy Wright inquiry, set up by the previous Government to investigate the death of Billy Wright in the Maze prison on 27 December 1997. I thank Lord MacLean and his panel for their work on the report.

The inquiry was established following the recommendation of Judge Cory that there was sufficient evidence of collusive acts by the Northern Ireland prison authorities to warrant the holding of a public inquiry. The inquiry was asked to determine whether the state facilitated, or attempted to facilitate, Billy Wright’s death, whether acts or omissions by the state were “intentional or negligent”, and “to make recommendations”.

The panel’s conclusions are clear and unequivocal on the central issue of collusion. There was no state collusion in the murder of Billy Wright. The panel finds that

“We were not…persuaded that in any instance there was evidence of collusive acts or collusive conduct.”

However, the panel concludes that

“some…actions did, in our opinion, facilitate his death.”

The report details a number of serious failings prior to Billy Wright’s death. The panel is clear that where failings are identified, they were the result of negligence rather than intentional acts.

The panel criticises specific decisions taken in relation to the prison. Specifically, the panel finds that

“the decision to allocate Billy Wright and the LVF faction to H Block 6 in April 1997 alongside the INLA prisoners was a wrongful act that directly facilitated”

his murder.

The panel also makes a series of criticisms of the management and operational running of the Maze prison at the time. Wrongful omissions identified by the panel included the

“failure…to strengthen the roof defences…failing to ensure that the exercise yards…were secured and checked each night”

and the failure to carry out a “full risk assessment” before the Loyalist Volunteer Force prisoners were returned to H block 6 in October 1997. Overall the panel identified

“a serious failure on the part of the NIPS and its Chief Executive to deal with recognised management problems in HMP Maze in 1997.”

The Cory report covered a number of issues relating to the day of Billy Wright’s murder, including the malfunctioning of a camera and the standing down of a guard in the observation tower. With two exceptions, the panel conclude that

“none of these occurrences facilitated the murder of Billy Wright”.

In relation to Billy Wright being called by name for his visit, as was “the practice”, the panel

“do not draw any sinister conclusion from this fact but conclude that it did assist his murderers”.

The panel also finds that the

“cutting of the hole in the fence alongside A Wing prior to 27 December undoubtedly facilitated the murder of Billy Wright.”

The panel makes a number of conclusions relating to intelligence received prior to Billy Wright’s death, in particular that the Royal Ulster Constabulary’s failure to communicate a key piece of intelligence was a

“wrongful omission which facilitated the death of Billy Wright in a way that was negligent rather than intentional.”

The report is also critical of the failure to disclose, and in some cases the destruction of, documentary evidence by institutions and state agencies. Although the panel finds that the Northern Ireland Prison Service supplied

“the available documentary evidence which allowed the Inquiry to fulfil its Terms of Reference”,

it is clear that files were destroyed, for which the NIPS apologised unreservedly in its submissions to the inquiry. In relation to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the report notes

“the lack of adequate and effective systems for information management, dissemination and retention with the added element in certain cases of a suspicion that this amounted to deliberate malpractice”.

Those are serious and profound failings. The NIPS has already accepted negligence in the civil proceedings brought by the Wright family in 2002. The prison service told the inquiry in its closing submission that it was a matter of profound regret to the service and its employees that Billy Wright was murdered while in custody. It apologised to the Wright family for any failings that were exploited by the murderers. I reiterate that on behalf of the Government today. There was no collusion. But, as the panel makes clear, Billy Wright was in the

“protective custody of the state”

at the time of his death. Whatever horrendous crimes Billy Wright or the LVF committed, his murder in a high-security prison should never have happened. It was wrong and I am sincerely sorry that failings in the system facilitated his murder.

There are three recommendations in the panel’s report. They cover the retention of prison records, whether any relevant lessons can be learnt for HMP Maghaberry, and whether a process similar to the Patten reforms of the RUC should be established for the Northern Ireland Prison Service. As the House is aware, prisons in Northern Ireland are now in the main a devolved matter. I will meet Justice Minister David Ford on Monday to discuss these recommendations.

It is of course important to recognise the context to Billy Wright’s death and the conditions in the Maze at the time. The circumstances of the Maze were exceptional, with 500 extremely dangerous terrorists belonging to various rival paramilitary organisations housed within the prison. A large number of the prisoners were convicted of the most heinous crimes and, as the Minister who then had responsibility for prisons, Adam Ingram, said in 1998:

“The Maze is unique. There is no other prison anywhere in the democratic world that has such a concentration of terrorist murderers”.

There is no doubt that those charged with running and overseeing the prison faced an incredibly difficult challenge, and for the most part that challenge was met.

The panel acknowledges the

“organisational and personal pressures and the valiant way in which many staff responded.”

Any failings in the management of the Maze identified in this report should not detract from the enormous courage and sacrifice that members of the Northern Ireland Prison Service made during the troubles. Let us not forget that 29 members of that service were killed during the troubles for carrying out their duties. Many more were injured in the line of duty. And as the report states, many of the families of prison officers had

“to move home because of threats made against them.”

Nor should we forget that responsibility for Billy Wright’s death lies with the INLA and the three individuals convicted of his murder. I condemn their crimes absolutely. There was never any justification for the brutal terrorist campaigns that the INLA, the Loyalist Volunteer Force and others waged. I am acutely conscious of the enormous suffering that such terrorists have caused.

The House will be well aware of the controversies over the cost and length of public inquiries in Northern Ireland. This inquiry has cost more than £30 million and lasted more than five years. Our views on these matters are well documented. Let me reiterate to the House, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done, that there will be no more costly and open-ended public inquiries.

The report is a clear account of the shortcomings in the management and running of the Maze at the time of Billy Wright’s death. His murder should never have happened. But any allegations that the state colluded in this violent killing have now been examined and rejected. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Shaun Woodward (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an early copy of his statement and join him in paying tribute to the inquiry chairman, Lord MacLean, his panel, the supporting law officers and officials. I also thank the Secretary of State for allowing hon. Members to read the report in advance of his statement.

We join the Secretary of State in putting on record our sincere thanks to the many brave men and women of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, many of whom gave their lives in the course of the troubles.

This has been an important inquiry. Whatever the context of the troubles, and whatever the crimes Billy Wright had committed—which led to his serving a custodial sentence—nothing should excuse or condone the terrible events two days after Christmas in 1997 that led to his murder while in the protective custody of a high-security prison. I share the Secretary of State’s expression of sorrow for the events and failings that happened.

Although the report addresses some of the so-called irregularities, we note Lord MacLean’s final paragraph:

“To our regret no explanation emerged in the evidence as to how the two firearms were introduced into the prison and put into the hands of his INLA murderers.”

The absence of an explanation is extremely serious. Furthermore, it has potential implications for current security policy in Maghaberry. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that all the lessons on security in prisons have been learned, especially given the events of the past 12 months?

In his recommendations, Lord MacLean observes that in 1997 the Maze was the sole prison in Northern Ireland holding the most dangerous terrorist prisoners. Given that today Maghaberry is the sole maximum security prison, can the Secretary of State tell the House what assessment he has made of the current policy for accommodation?

This inquiry, which, significantly, was converted to be held under the Inquiries Act 2005, and is therefore fundamental evidence of the good faith and efficacy of the Act, is extremely important to the family of Mr Wright. The inquiry needed to determine whether any wrongful act or omission by the prison authorities or other state agencies contributed or led to the murder of Billy Wright—or, as others have put it, whether there was collusion. The inquiry’s conclusion is very clear. Crucially, it was not persuaded by the evidence it was able to obtain

“that in any instance there was evidence of collusive acts or collusive conduct.”

The Secretary of State accepts this, and so do we.

In accepting the inquiry’s firm conclusion that there was no collusion, however, the Secretary of State will have noted Lord MacLean’s concern to qualify Judge Cory’s definition of the word “collusion”, expressing concern at the “wide definition” used by Judge Cory. How does the Secretary of State reconcile these different definitions, especially given the possibility that further inquiries might also qualify the definition, the consequences of which might allow some to draw contradictory interpretations, and even contradictory conclusions?

At Weston Park, the British and Irish Governments agreed to look into the possibility of public inquiries into several cases of alleged collusion. The inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane has not yet been established. The House will know that when I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, we made it clear that it would be in the public interest to make an urgent decision on how to proceed with the Finucane inquiry once, and as soon as, Lord Saville had produce his inquiry.

The Government handled the publication of the Saville inquiry with great dignity, sensitivity and skill. Three months have now passed. In his statement today, the Secretary of State quoted the Prime Minister’s words that there would be no more costly and open-ended public inquiries, but he missed out the qualification that the Prime Minister used in his statement on Lord Saville’s report. So in the light of the Secretary of State’s words today, is he effectively telling the Finucane family that they will not have an inquiry?

The Secretary of State rightly sets great store by the work of the Historical Enquiries Team. However, where we differ is in the belief that the HET can deal with all the problems of the past. He must appreciate from the inquiry published today that the HET would have neither the budget nor the resources to mount an investigation such as the one into Billy Wright’s murder. This inquiry alone would have exhausted the entire budget of the HET, which is now tasked with looking at several thousand unsolved deaths and murders.

That brings us to the nub of the issue. Most of the families of those who died in the troubles simply want to know the circumstances of the deaths of their loved ones, and so bring closure to terrible grief and tragedy. Northern Ireland cannot be held in the grip of its past, but it will not be released from that grip just because the British Government say so. Reconciliation will require a process—and a process for everyone—but one that must recognise that no one size can fit all. Closing down the inquiry route for all, without having established a proper alternative, resourced and adequately funded, would be to take a serious risk with the stability not just of the politics, but of the lasting peace of Northern Ireland. On that, the Secretary of State should be cautious. I urge him to reflect carefully.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his opening comments. He asked a number of questions. First, on the lessons for prisons, he played a huge part in ensuring that prisons were devolved. It is not for me to make judgments today about the comments in the tribunal’s report. I have a meeting with the devolved Minister, David Ford, on Monday, and I will go through those recommendations with him. The same applies to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about Maghaberry. There are 70 separated prisoners in Maghaberry at the moment, which is an enormous contrast with the concentration of 500 prisoners in the Maze in 1997. Again, however, if there are lessons to be drawn from today’s report, they are to be drawn by the devolved Minister and those who work under him, and then put into practice.

On collusion, the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly pointed out that there is a contrast between Judge Cory’s definition, which ran to 765 words, and the shorter version, which Lord MacLean came up with. For the benefit of the House, let me read the concise definition of collusion that Lord MacLean came up with in the report:

“For our part we consider that the essence of collusion is an agreement or arrangement between individuals or organisations, including government departments, to achieve an unlawful or improper purpose. The purpose may also be fraudulent or underhand”.

That is a good distillation of what Judge Cory was aiming at. We have to take the definition given by the tribunal in the report, and the report was quite clear: there was no collusion in this case.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Finucane case. As with the last time he raised the issue, I have written to the Finucane family. He wrestled with the problem when he was in office, and although I am fully aware of the difficulties and sensitivities associated with the case, it is right that I talk to the family first, before deciding how we proceed further.

The right hon. Gentleman then talked about the past. He quite rightly contrasted the £30 million spent on the one death that we are discussing today and the £34 million that was the original budget, over six years, for the HET, which is looking into 3,268 deaths. My view is that this asymmetrical approach to the past, with an extraordinary intensity of effort put into a small number of cases, is not fair and is invidious. I hope that we will get the same reaction today that we had to Saville—that it was an effort well spent—but for the future, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is no consensus on how we handle the past.

The right hon. Gentleman called for submissions reacting to the Eames-Bradley report, which he received in October and which, in fairness to us, we published in the summer. I am listening to parties in this House across the board, and the Minister of State and I are going round Northern Ireland talking to numerous people and groups. Sadly, however, as he saw from those replies to Eames-Bradley, there is just no consensus. It is not for us, as the Westminster Government, to impose one; rather, it is our task to try to find a way forward in close collaboration with local politicians and local groups. That is how we intend to approach the past.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and the report. While acknowledging the mistakes that have been made—mistakes that are highlighted in the report—I join him in paying tribute to the many prison officers who have worked against a background that has not been seen on the mainland or in many other countries. Indeed, 29 prison officers lost their lives—28 of them outside the prison, which shows the danger that they faced as they went about their work.

Does the Secretary of State agree that this report, and the Saville report on Bloody Sunday, highlight the waste involved in the years of the troubles, and the waste that terrorism brings in terms of lost lives and wasted opportunities? Does the report not point to the fact that the way forward for Northern Ireland must surely be through peace and democracy?

It is difficult to bring closure when there have been so many deaths in Northern Ireland, but relatives involved with Bloody Sunday, and now those involved with the Billy Wright report, have received some form of closure. There are, however, many crimes, including Omagh, that have not been properly investigated or been the subject of such a report. Will the Secretary of State tell us what he intends to do about that?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for his comments, and commend the Committee for the work that it does for Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right to say that the more we go into the details of these cases, the more apparent the traumatic waste of the troubles becomes. We would like to work with him and his Committee as we seek a way forward on handling the past.

On the question of Omagh, I shall be having a meeting with the relatives affected by that appalling atrocity reasonably soon. As I said earlier, it is our intention to talk to as many people as we can over the coming months, to see whether we can find a means of handling the past that attracts broad support. Sadly, however, I am fully conscious that however hard we try, we will not come up with something that pleases everyone.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for this report and for his comments today. I want to pay tribute to Mr David Wright, Billy Wright’s father, who is one of my constituents; the family as a whole lived in my constituency. David Wright went the extra mile to try to find the truth of how his son died. No matter what his son was in prison for, he was the responsibility of Her Majesty’s Government and the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

We got the report this morning. It contains 700-odd pages, and even Einstein could not have comprehended it all in the given time. It highlights to me, however, the difficulties that existed at that time in the prison. I pay tribute to the prison officers, who have done a sterling job down through the years, but the senior management of the Prison Service have some questions to answer. Will the Secretary of State tell us what confidence he can give to the people of Northern Ireland in relation to the Prison Service going into the future, and whether any of the senior management who are still alive will pay a price for this?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I endorse his feelings for his constituent, Mr David Wright, whom I met a couple of weeks ago. He has battled staunchly to try to find out how his son died. I also echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and those of the Chairman of the Select Committee, about those who work in the Prison Service, who were given great praise in the report.

As for the future of the Prison Service, that matter is now in local hands. It is down to the local Justice Minister, who is accountable to the Assembly and sits on the Executive. I will sit with him on Monday and we will go through the very serious failings that have emerged from the report—which are, of course, from another era—and through its recommendations. What happens next, however, is very much down to the local Minister, working with local politicians.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I too have met David Wright; unfortunately, I never met Billy Wright, but I too felt David Wright’s pain as a father. I have also met many victims of Billy Wright and the LVF. We remember them today, just as we should remember all the victims of all the terrorism of the INLA, who will have very mixed feelings on a day like today.

The Secretary of State has told us in the statement that the report emphatically rejects the idea of collusion. But does he not agree that that is partly because the report relies on the fact that the word “collusion” was not in the terms of reference for the inquiry and also because it specifically demurred from Judge Cory’s definition of collusion—a definition that was, of course, clearly embraced by the police ombudsman in the recent report about Claudy?

As for the findings, the report identified six wrongful omissions by the Northern Ireland Prison Service, which the panel say facilitated the murder or death of Billy Wright. Three further findings of wrongful omissions were identified that indirectly facilitated his murder, as well as two wrongful acts by the NIPS, one of which is held directly to have facilitated the murder, and one serious failure on the part of the Prison Service and its chief executive, involving a decision with ministerial knowledge, with conclusions attached to that to the effect that wrongful acts or omissions indirectly facilitated the murder. One Maze prison practice was concluded to have assisted the murder; one further prison failure undoubtedly facilitated the murder; and one wrongful omission by the Royal Ulster Constabulary that facilitated the murder was held to be negligent rather than intentional. In relation to the same issue, there was one most unfortunate conclusion against the security service. Yet all that adds up to “no collusion”, so what does it add up to?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have to remind him that we did not commission this inquiry and we did not set the terms. We received it yesterday afternoon and we have come straight to the House to publish it. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly lists the very severe criticisms of factors that led to the murder of Billy Wright in prison, which were serious failings that should not have happened to any British citizen in protective custody in a high-security prison. I have been open about that and I have sincerely apologised on behalf of the British Government. In fairness to ourselves, we have to take the report as commissioned and as it has been presented to us, and under those terms, the tribunal is quite clear that there has been no intent of collusion and no act that could be regarded as collusive either by commission or omission.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

For a citizen to be murdered while in the protective custody of Her Majesty’s Government is shocking and disgraceful. When one considers that that person was murdered as a result of actions and omissions by agencies of the state, it is all the more shocking and disgraceful. Clearly, there are still unanswered questions, not least about how firearms came to be in possession of the killer. As to the missing and destroyed files and documents referred to—they were destroyed by both the PSNI and by the Northern Ireland Prison Service—to what extent is the lack of those documents and files a contributory factor in the inability to get to the truth of what really happened on that day?

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point—that it is most regrettable that a large number of documents were destroyed. It is wrong, and the report goes into some detail to show that a large amount of documentation was destroyed or lost. The report goes on to say, however, that nothing was found to suggest anything “sinister” in the document destruction. We should not forget that this was an inquiry into whether there was collusion. Did the British state do something deliberate or not do something by omission that led to the murder of Billy Wright? Having looked at more than 30,000 pages and after 152 days of hearings, the inquiry’s conclusion was that there was no collusion. We have to take the report as it has been presented to us.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has said, none of us should forget the pain and suffering of many people at the hands of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland over the past 35 years. We must never forget the actions, either direct or indirect, of the late Mr Wright, which resulted in the loss of life in the general Portadown-Craigavon area, or his actions in relation to the whole Drumcree crisis. We must also not forget the pain and suffering of his father and his family, because those events resulted in his death, which should never have happened.

Will the Secretary of State outline the advice and recommendations that he will give Minister Ford when he meets him next week, with due reference to a possible commission to produce a root-and-branch review, and to the systemic failure of the management of the Northern Ireland Prison Service? There was no conjunction between policy and operation. Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us what efforts he will make to assuage the fears of Mrs Finucane and her family, and the Ballymurphy families, who are also suffering at this time and who are seeking truth and justice in relation to the deaths and murders of their loved ones?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). People suffered at the hands of the INLA, the LVF and the Ulster Volunteer Force and I wholeheartedly condemn those who caused that suffering. We should not forget that it was terrorists who caused those deaths.

When I meet the Justice Minister on Monday, I will go through the recommendations in the report. However, they are not for me to impose. That is what devolution is all about. Devolution is in the hands of local Ministers. We will have a thorough and open discussion, because, as the hon. Lady says, the facts involved are shocking, but we should also bear in mind that those facts date from a long time ago, and concern an institution that has long since closed. What I have seen leads me to believe that there is no comparison between the Northern Ireland Prison Service today and the service that struggled to handle the extremely difficult circumstances of holding 500 determined murderers in the Maze.

The hon. Lady asked briefly about the Finucane and Ballymurphy cases. I am due to have meetings with those concerned, and I think it would be wrong for me to jump the gun before I have met them.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

The Maze prison, where the murder occurred, is in my constituency. I well recall the events, and the subsequent inquiries and investigation by the police. I am concerned about the fact that the report does not identify how the weapons were brought into the prison. That remains a key issue. All the other failings were important, but it is doubtful whether the murder could have occurred had those weapons not been available to terrorists in what was reputedly the most high-security prison in Europe. I do not think that we can allow the report to pass without further inquiry into how the weapons came to be in the possession of the INLA terrorists.

There will also be doubts in many people’s minds today about the series of events leading up to the murder of Billy Wright. I condemn murder, whether by the LVF or by any other paramilitary or terrorist organisation. My thoughts are, of course, with the victims, but Billy Wright’s family are entitled to know the truth of what happened. In particular, his father, David Wright, is entitled to know what happened to his son. I do not believe that the report gives us that.

There are too many coincidences, too many happenstances, too many things that went wrong all at the same time, all of which contributed to the murder. Many of us are left with more questions than answers in our minds today.

[Mr Paterson]

I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not happy with the result of this report, after an investigation by a senior judge and his tribunal with its highly respected panel, and with more than 30,000 pages of evidence having been looked at. Obviously, it is also very regrettable that some of the details have not emerged. How the guns got into H block 6 is still not clear. That highlights one of the sad facts about trying to arrive at a system to look at the past: in some cases we just will not get to those final details. This may be one of those cases. After spending £30 million and following six years of investigation by some of the most experienced lawyers in the western world, we have not got to one of the key details: how the guns were smuggled into the H block. As we look ahead, I am afraid that we are going to have to accept that, in respect of some of these past cases, we simply will never know.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I wonder whether the Secretary of State will address a specific issue that was raised in a local Northern Ireland newspaper this morning. Was there any evidence at all that the RUC or MI5 had prior warning that the INLA intended to murder Billy Wright but failed to take action to prevent the murder? Was there any shred of evidence to support that contention?

[Mr Paterson]

No, there was no evidence of a clear plan, but there is strong criticism that certain intelligence reports—particularly one in April—were not passed on and that the systems of transmitting data and intelligence were not good enough.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the statement. Does he not feel incredibly short-changed by this £30-million report that has certainly made lawyers extremely wealthy but has done very little to provide us with any more answers to questions than when this entire sorry saga commenced, and does he agree that if we accept his analysis that we will never actually get to the truth in all of this, all we can conclude about this report is that it is a whitewash?

[Mr Paterson]

We inherited a series of inquiries commissioned by the previous Government, and as the incoming Government all we can do is face up to them and publish them as swiftly as possible. In respect of this case, the inquiry was set the clear remit of looking into whether the British state colluded. It has run on at considerably more expense and for considerably longer than was originally planned, but we have immediately come forward and presented it to the House in the very narrow window of Parliament sitting for these two weeks in September, and the hon. Gentleman can therefore now read it at length and draw his own conclusions. I think we do have to separate the issue of process from the result, however, and I hope that some people will be reassured by this very detailed investigation of the case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State clearly outlined the case, and he will understand the dissatisfaction that we Members from Northern Ireland have about it. The right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) mentioned one of our concerns: the guns problem. If there were no guns in the prison, there would be nobody dead today. Can you, Secretary of State, assure us today that you will carry out a further investigation to find out how those guns were smuggled in? Is it your intention to do that, or are you just going to drop the whole thing today and forget about it?

[Mr Speaker]

May I very gently say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not my intention to do any of the things to which he referred? I am sure, however, that the Secretary of State will volunteer a response.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I think I have just answered it, however. After £30 million and six years, I am not sure what more can be done, or for how much longer we can carry on looking into an individual case. It is very regrettable that the data to enable us to get to every fine detail of the case may not be available, but we also must recognise that 3,268 deaths are being looked at by the Historical Enquiries Team, and there must be some sense of balance. After a certain amount of time and effort has been expended, we have to accept that certain details may never emerge, but I think that an inquiry lasting six years, involving one of the top lawyers in the country and 30,000 pages of evidence, illustrates that an enormous amount of effort has gone into this case.

Northern Ireland

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Graham Evans]

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much (a) his Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on hospitality in each year since 1997.

[Mr Paterson]

On 12 April 2010 the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) transferred responsibility for policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Comparable figures for the Department as it is now configured are not available.

Since 12 April the Department has spent £234 on hospitality.

The NIO has no agencies. It has one non-departmental public body which has incurred no cost on hospitality since 12 April.

[Official Report, 19 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 5W.]

Letter of correction from Mr. Paterson:

An error has been identified in relation to the answer given to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on 19 July 2010, Official Report, column 5W, on hospitality expenditure.

It has come to our attention that the figure of £234 was not up to date at the time of answering this Question as some relevant July costs had not been centrally recorded at the time the Question was answered. The updated figure should have been £438.63.

The corrected full answer should now read:

[Mr Paterson]

On 12 April 2010 the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) transferred responsibility for policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Comparable figures for the Department as it is now configured are not available.

Since 12 April the Department has spent £438.63 on hospitality.

The NIO has no agencies. It has one non-departmental public body which has incurred no cost on hospitality since 12 April.

Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland (Report 2009-10)

Owen Paterson Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland is responsible for all aspects of electoral administration in Northern Ireland, including the conduct of all elections and referendums, as well as electoral registration. Section 14 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962—as amended by section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006—provides that the Chief Electoral Officer must submit an annual report to the Secretary of State. The annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland for 2009-10 has been laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.