Security in Northern Ireland

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I suppose there was a certain nervousness about this debate. It has been a measured debate, but as many hon. Members have said, we do not wish to paint a picture of Northern Ireland as being back in the 1970s and 1980s. Considerable progress has been made. I was glad that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) introduced the debate, he gave a balanced picture of a Northern Ireland that has moved on considerably. The Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, and all hon. Members who have spoken, have echoed that.

The one thing that would give great consolation to those who murdered Prison Officer Black would be that their vile act is used to try to destabilise Northern Ireland further—economically, politically and in all other ways. That has not happened. The family have acted with dignity, and the community and security forces have been responsive, which is important. For Northern Ireland to succeed, and for us to move in the direction we want—to a normal and prosperous society that gives hope to young people who are looking for jobs, and families who want to bring up their children in a stable environment—we cannot allow the cancer of terrorism once again to push Northern Ireland into the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

This year, we have had more tourists than ever, and we have succeeded even in the middle of a recession in attracting more foreign direct investment to our economy than any other region bar the south-east of England. Despite that and all the other changes, some people would love to wallow and say, “Things are just as bad as what they ever were.” I do not want this debate to give credence to such a view of life: that is not where Northern Ireland is today. We have already referred to the events that have happened this year and the events we are looking forward to next year. Even in Londonderry, with its republican and nationalist majority on the council, they are going to celebrate the UK city of culture next year. That is how Northern Ireland has changed. We may even have the Deputy First Minister going to the Brit awards—

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The Brits out awards! [Laughter.]

[Sammy Wilson]

I have not heard that phrase for a while.

As hon. Members have pointed out, despite those changes it is important that we do not get complacent and that we recognise that dangers still lurk that affect people’s daily lives in Northern Ireland. We have to deal with those dangers, and I accept that we as the public representatives in Northern Ireland have a responsibility to deal with them ourselves. I am glad that we are moving away from the days when we went and asked everyone else to help us with our problems and relied on them to sort out our problems for us. We have a devolved Administration, which includes parties across the board, although it is a difficult arrangement to make work, especially when dealing with people as financially irresponsible as Sinn Fein and, marginally behind them, the SDLP. People talk of their support for the police, but if the police start to deal with some of the colleagues of those who were involved in terrorism, that support suddenly becomes qualified. It is disgraceful—

[Naomi Long]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that Ministers from his own party advocate civil disobedience in the face of violence in the streets of our cities? That is also irresponsible and should be condemned and avoided.

[Sammy Wilson]

In any democratic society, there is always the opportunity for people to engage in peaceful protest, if that is what the hon. Lady means. There is a huge difference between those who say that members of the public can engage in peaceful protest and those who say that it is political policing for the police to go through due process to arrest people for serious crimes—including murder. I notice that the SDLP Members have been quiet on this point. It is one thing for someone on Dungannon council in the back of beyond to call for the release of someone who was guilty of trying to murder a council colleague: it is another to stand up in the House of Commons and defend that. I note that SDLP Members have not tried to do that, because there is a bit more public scrutiny here.

It is important that we in Northern Ireland take responsibility not only for seeking to try to heal the divisions of the past, but for giving support to those who have to deal with the reality of the lingering terrorism that we still experience. I do not buy the idea—to which the shadow Secretary of State referred—that people get involved in terrorism because they are economically deprived. We do an injustice to people who have lived their lives in difficult economic conditions and never become involved in crime if we make that excuse. We have a responsibility to provide hope in our society, so that people can have a stake in it, feel that there is something better for them and that it is a place where they want to belong. The Executive are seeking to do that and to direct resources towards the young and unemployed, and people who have lost their jobs. We are looking at innovative ways to try to give that economic hope to people.

There is a need for security policies that will be effective, and responsibility for those may, at some stage, lie with the Government here in Westminster. If we are going to deal with terrorism, we must have intelligence. There are various ways of gathering intelligence—electronic surveillance and so on—but human intelligence sources are also important. The security services are responsible for gathering that intelligence in Northern Ireland. I know that they are hampered in doing so, and I remember my time in the police force and some of the unrealistic demands that were made, especially by some of the SDLP representatives—Sinn Fein was not on the Police Board then. People almost had to be Sunday school teachers to become informants for the police because there were so many restrictions. If people were involved in this, that or the other, they could not be recruited as intelligence sources. We would have been left with people who would not have had any idea about what was going on in the criminal underworld of terrorism if we had stuck by those restrictions. The important question is what changes we need to make to get the intelligence required to ensure that those who want to engage in such criminal behaviour are quickly identified.

There is also a resource aspect to this. I know that the Police Federation has talked about 1,000 extra police officers. I do not know whether we need 1,000 extra police officers or not, but I do know that if we are to target terrorists—including intensive surveillance on them—it will require additional resources. I give credit to the Government because when policing and justice were devolved, we were given additional resources for policing of £50 million on a yearly basis, depending on the assessment of the security situation. The Chief Constable and the Northern Ireland Executive made the case that they had to plan ahead and could not be left to wonder whether they would get the £50 million every year—whether the security situation would be assessed as okay or as having deteriorated. They asked for the money to be guaranteed for a four-year period, so that planning could take place to make best use of the resources. I pay tribute to the Government and the Treasury for accepting that argument, and that is why the Chief Constable has been able to plan ahead.

Additional resources may be required in the future. If so, it will be to deal with a national security situation, and not just to have more community policemen on the ground in Northern Ireland. I understand why Members on both sides of the House, when they see cuts in their police service, ask why Northern Ireland is treated differently from other parts of the United Kingdom when it comes to constraints on police budgets. But this issue does not apply only to Northern Ireland. If the situation gets out of hand, it will have national security implications. Republicans would far rather do something on the UK mainland than in Northern Ireland—that would be much more newsworthy. They get the base, they get the wherewithal, they get the ability and they get the mechanisms for doing it, and we can be sure that this is where the targets will be.

If the Chief Constable makes the assessment that additional resources are needed, I hope there will be a positive response. That is not to say that we in the Northern Ireland Executive must not do anything. Indeed, we have provided for greater flexibility in the security budget than for any other budget. In any other Department, where money is not, or cannot, be spent in the way it was voted on, it has to be returned to the centre and looked at again. The security budget has been ring-fenced so that the Chief Constable has much greater flexibility. This is not an issue of holding out our hands and looking for more money; this is about what we can do for ourselves first of all. However, if the situation deteriorates—I hope that it does not, and that there is never a need to call on the House and the Government for more resources for policing in Northern Ireland; I, and the citizens of Northern Ireland, want to see policing return to normality—then that is one thing that could be done.

I appreciate the response—the support and recognition—from all parts of the House to the situation in Northern Ireland. For our part, we raised this issue because it is important to the people who live in Northern Ireland for it to be highlighted. We have done so in a measured way; not in an alarmist way, but in a way that, as public representatives in Northern Ireland, we have a duty to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

I concur entirely. In some areas where loyalism has a particular grip on the community, racketeering and profiteering from local businesses have often led to the destruction of small businesses and severely damaged economic opportunities for those living in the immediate area.

[Sammy Wilson]

indicated assent.

[Naomi Long]

I see the hon. Gentleman—who was previously a councillor in my constituency—concurring. We are talking about something recognisable in many of the communities that both of us have served. It is therefore hugely important that we take seriously the call by the Police Federation for Northern Ireland to consider re-specifying organisations such as the Ulster Volunteer Force and also proscribing some of the newer republican organisations, in order to aid the police and security services in making progress against such organisations.

I was born at the end of 1971; 1972 was the worst year of the troubles. I lived my whole life as a child against the backdrop of violence in the city I grew up in. I look at Belfast now and it is not the city that I grew up in. It is a better, more vibrant, more open and more welcoming place. I am hugely proud to have lived in that city; however, I would not wish my experiences of growing up there as a child to be visited on another generation. When the Good Friday agreement and the subsequent political agreements were made, I believed that we were moving towards the end of such experiences. I do not want young people in my community to have the same memories—of death and destruction, of fear and terror—as I and my contemporaries grew up experiencing. It is not a normal way to live, and it should not be visited on today’s young people. Therefore, as elected representatives, together with the security services and the community, we must present a united front so that those intent on continuing down this destructive path are prevented at every turn.

Security is part of the answer, but it is not the whole answer. Our security response in the current context needs to be effective, but also consistent with the kind of Northern Ireland we want for the future. We need politics to work. It needs to be a real alternative. It needs to be resilient in the face of attack and united in its condemnation of any breach of the rule of the law, and without equivocation. We need to redouble our efforts to build a shared society and tackle sectarianism, which remains a breeding ground for the kind of hatred that in turn breeds paramilitarism. We need maturity and generosity in dealing with the difficult issues that still face us as a community, as part of the legacy of the troubles. We need to find ways of doing that which do not bring people on to the streets, placing them in conflict with our security services and creating opportunities for those who wish to take the extra step from peaceful protest to violent conflict by providing them with a platform to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

1. What discussions his Department has had with HM Treasury on loss of revenue as a result of fuel laundering in Northern Ireland.

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

My Department has regular discussions with HM Treasury on a wide range of issues. Fuel fraud is primarily an excise offence and, therefore, an excepted matter that falls to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which works closely with the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland and its counterparts in Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

Despite the fact that over the past six years more than £2 billion has been lost in revenue as a result of criminal activities through fuel laundering, HMRC has taken only 28 cases to court, and there has been only one custodial sentence, which was suspended. Does the Secretary of State believe that that is an adequate response from HMRC or the court system in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and I appreciate his knowledge of this subject, as Minister of Finance and Personnel. He makes a very good point, which I have discussed with David Ford, the Minister of Justice. We have agreed that we should work together so that Northern Ireland sentences can be appealed against if considered too lenient.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Economic development in Northern Ireland is being held up by the reluctance of banks to lend to viable businesses and their withdrawing of capital from existing businesses. What discussions has the Minister had about whether banks in Northern Ireland are meeting their Merlin targets? Also, why is it that the Merlin target figures can be published for Scotland, but not for Northern Ireland?

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, which he also made in the Finance Ministers quadrilateral last week. We need to get more lending to companies in Northern Ireland, where we are fishing in a smaller pool because we do not have so many banks to lend. We want to see those figures and to work together to see how we can get more lending to smaller companies.

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

On what is a sad day, 2012 promises to be an action-filled year. The SDLP welcomes the progress that has been made in the north of Ireland over the past 10 to 15 years, of which we were very much part. We shaped the character of that progress and its development. In fact, we were particularly innovative in the political developments.

There has been much to celebrate in Northern Ireland, particularly with regard to our sporting heroes right across the sporting arena, whether in rugby, athletics, golf or the Gaelic Athletic Association. There is much there, and we must not forget that we are talking about a shared and inclusive society. There is much to celebrate in the film industry. Only two weeks ago a person from Northern Ireland won an Oscar for “The Shore.” Only last year the same director produced a film in Downpatrick, in my constituency, called “Whole Lotta Sole”, which will have its debut later this year. That film was centred on a fish and chip shop, but it was not necessarily about fish. In fact, it might have had more to do with the political turmoil out of which we have emerged.

There has been considerable movement away from violence and conflict and towards a more peaceful and harmonious society. We are all very glad about that and want to see the institutions that emerged out of the Good Friday agreement and the principles that were laid down in the agreement fully realised. Therefore, we believe that the institutions should be fully functional, that the Northern Ireland Executive should have a detailed programme for government and a full programme of legislation and that the North/South Ministerial Council must become fully operational. We also believe that it should be cross-sectoral in its approach, by which we mean that it should have a north-west focus, which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) would welcome, and a south-east focus, which would accommodate the interests of my constituency of South Down and those of north County Louth. We want more north-south bodies to be created, for the review of the north-south dimension to be published and for the Irish identity to be not only recognised and acknowledged, but given political weight.

That brings me to the motion. We welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland 2012 campaign is intended to change perceptions of Northern Ireland and encourage many more visitors. We want people to see the beauty of Northern Ireland, the scenery and the attributes of the people, which are already demonstrated through their inventions and sporting prowess and in many other fields. However, I am a bit afraid and will be looking to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to clarify some points for me, because it could be construed that the motion—how shall I say this?—focuses on a single identity and is one-track or single-dimensional, because it contains no reference to an Irish identity or Irish nationalism, which is also very much part of the north of Ireland and is represented in this House by the three SDLP Members.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The events of 2012 are the events of 2012: there is the centenary of the Titanic, the centenary of the Ulster covenant and the Queen’s diamond jubilee. So the motion, and its writer, did not dictate those dates, but does the hon. Lady agree that all those events, given that they will improve and provide opportunities to add to economic activity in Northern Ireland and can be enjoyed by all, should be seen not as single-identity events but as something that can unite all the people in Northern Ireland, who will be able to enjoy them and, indeed, benefit from them economically?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I say to all Members present that it is important that we look to all events and at all the attributes of the people of Northern Ireland. It is not enough simply to look through the narrow prism of one identity, but this motion could be construed as such, and I say that more in sorrow than in anger, and more with regret than anything else.

So I look to the right hon. Member for Belfast North—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before I call the remaining speakers—there are two—I should tell them that I intend to call the wind-ups at 5.8 pm. If they could share the time, that would be very acceptable to all Members in the Chamber.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

May I first apologise for not being present for most of the debate? Unfortunately, I had a meeting to discuss the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland, which is a very important issue.

I gather that the debate has been fairly lively. The only two speeches I heard were from the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I did not know we had to parade the benefits of our constituencies in the debate. The shadow Secretary of State said that Strangford is the most beautiful constituency he has been to, but he said that before he had even been to my constituency, adding that he wanted to visit.

I think I can trump everything my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford said about his constituency. He has the Scrabo tower, which was built a mere 150 years ago; I have Carrickfergus castle, the oldest Norman fort, I believe, in the whole United Kingdom. He talks about St Patrick wandering around his constituency; King Billy landed in mine. He talks about the Ards shopping centre; I have a cathedral of consumerism at the Abbey centre. For goodness sake! For his mere Comber spud, I can offer Glenarm salmon, which is famous the world over. I could go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know you want me to move on.

The debate is important, but I was a bit saddened by what I heard from the hon. Member for South Down. I like her, but her speech was not worthy of her. This debate was not meant to be about boasting about the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland; it was about promoting Northern Ireland, whose people have different backgrounds, national aspirations, outlooks and huge historical differences. Nevertheless, I believe that 2012 offers an opportunity to all people in Northern Ireland to gain from the economic benefits that will arise from the unique events and anniversaries this year. Those events and anniversaries will also help us to understand some of our own traditions, background and history.

I was saddened, therefore, by the contribution from the hon. Member for South Down because this should have been a positive debate, and I hope that it will be seen as such. We are proud to live in Northern Ireland and proud that it has come through the dark days that have probably dominated most of our lives—certainly most of our political lives—and is moving on. The motion states that we are moving forward not because of what Unionists alone have done but because of what we have all done and the compromises we have all had to make. I believe that those decisions will ensure that the next 30 years are not blighted like the past 30 years. I was a bit saddened, then, by her negative approach.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman said that he had not heard the whole debate. On the positive changes made, the motion and 2012, does he acknowledge the particularly strong and positive role being played by Tourism Ireland—a body whose creation his party persistently opposed for many years and whose budget it tried to have aborted? Will he accept that he got that wrong and was negative, but that now it is doing good things?

[Sammy Wilson]

I would prefer to consider what all of us now have to do to promote Northern Ireland not only next year but in all the years ahead. And one area we have to offer and which has been identified as a growth industry is the tourism industry: it is labour intensive; we have a good natural resource that we can exploit to the benefit of tourism; and there is huge interest in past events in Northern Ireland. So we have the industry, the history and the architectural heritage, and we should exploit that.

[Mark Durkan]

All of it.

[Ms Ritchie]

All of it.

[Sammy Wilson]

All of it, yes. That includes the features in the hon. Lady’s constituency that people visit and into which money has been poured to develop some of that tourism infrastructure, and the celebrations of St Patrick and that whole tradition—some claim St Patrick for the Roman Catholic community, some claim it for the Protestant community. It really does not matter! If St Patrick is a marketable commodity, let us make him a marketable commodity and benefit from it. [Interruption.] Yes, and a neutral flag as well.

It is disappointing that this is seen as divisive rather than unifying. There are huge opportunities for us in the celebration of the Titanic, of the Ulster covenant and of Her Majesty’s 60th anniversary. We have not been selective about these events. They are outside our control. This year is the 100th anniversary of some of these events, and we cannot dictate which ones we include and which we do not. They just happen to be there. We need to ensure, however, that we get the maximum benefit from them and that they are used in a way that is not divisive but unifying so that the whole community can benefit from the economic opportunity.

The motion recognises, at the very end, that we want to see Northern Ireland moving forward, and moving forward together. We recognise the progress made and we do not see these events as exclusive. They are to be enjoyed by people in Northern Ireland. Most importantly, we want them enjoyed by people outside Northern Ireland. I will not go through, as I am sure other hon. Members have, all the benefits of my own constituency, although I mentioned some of them in the introduction.

[Mr Dodds]

I very much welcome the tone and content of my hon. Friend’s remarks about the nature of the events that we are highlighting. However, while we are on the subject of events happening in his constituency—I think he referred to the “cathedral of consumerism”—I should just make it clear that the Abbey centre is actually in Belfast North.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is near the border, and I could not think of a cathedral in my constituency. Just as my right hon. Friend—the Member for Belfast North—purloined part of my constituency at the last review by the Boundary Commission, I have taken in some of the shopping in his. Indeed, those facilities are used mostly by people from East Antrim anyway, and would probably not be able to survive were they unable to go and shop there, so I suppose we share it to that extent—I knew it was probably a mistake to let him intervene.

I know that others want to speak, so let me say in conclusion that I hope that 2012 will be a year in which we see a further turning of the corner in Northern Ireland. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland know that there have been changes; after 2012, because of the international interest, people further afield will know that there have been changes in that part of the United Kingdom too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One survey showed that public spending represents 77.6% of GDP in Northern Ireland. We know that that is wholly unsustainable, and we are committed to rebalancing the economy over time, working closely with the Executive.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

One of the ways of rebalancing the economy towards the private sector is to ensure that there is a flow of funds from the banking sector to private firms. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the credit easing measures announced yesterday will apply effectively in Northern Ireland, given the lack of market penetration by UK mainland banks and the high dependence on Irish banks?

[Mr Paterson]

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that the national loan guarantee scheme, which the Chancellor announced yesterday, applies to Northern Ireland. That will be of great benefit to small businesses right across Northern Ireland.

Pat Finucane

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

Again, I say that we accept the verdict of Stevens that there was collusion and we have apologised. What we have set out today is a swift route to the truth.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

May I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and express my disappointment that the anger that has been expressed by the family is being used to indicate that the peace process in Northern Ireland is so fragile that it will somehow fall apart as a result of the disappointment of one family? The Secretary of State has given us details about the inquiry, but will he also tell us the cost of the inquiry so far and give us an assurance that this marks a permanent end to the expensive public inquiry process of dealing with the past, which has done nothing to heal wounds but has filled the wallets of lawyers?

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. This is not an inquiry—it is a review—and I appointed Sir Desmond only this morning. To repeat, we estimate the cost to be £1.5 million. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s opinion that we need to move on. Let me pick up on an earlier comment. A few weeks ago, I was in Enniskillen, where I met about 100 young people who were asked their three priorities. Not one of them mentioned the past. I think there is a generational issue here. For those affected—the 3,268 people and any of their relatives and for the Finucane family—these events are absolutely, shatteringly appalling. Their whole adult lives have been dominated by them and we have to recognise that, but there is a new generation coming through and we have to think about them. That is why we have to resolve these outstanding issues and move on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am delighted to report that the consultation, which ends on Friday, has received the overwhelming endorsement of all five political parties. The leaders in the Executive came to Kelvatek for the launch of that very successful consultation. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been to Northern Ireland to see what is happening for themselves—as has my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, who is going again tomorrow—and we will respond in the autumn.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Northern Ireland economy is to be helped through the devolution of corporation tax, that must come at a fair, reasonable and acceptable price rather than a price that is detrimental to economic growth?

[Mr Paterson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Treasury document makes it clear that every 2.5% reduction in corporation tax requires a £60 million to £90 million reduction in the block grant. That constitutes 0.5% of the block grant, which many economists and businesses consider to be a very modest investment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

We have the Ulster fry, with which we can celebrate in numerous splendid establishments in Northern Ireland. I think the message is that we have stabilised the economy. We have moved out of the danger zone that we used to inhabit after inheriting the mess from the last Government, and today we can celebrate moving forward with a constructive Budget and specific measures to help small businesses in Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I hope that the Budget sizzles but does not burn the economy.

Does the Secretary of State believe that a corporation tax change for Northern Ireland which also imposes a huge financial burden on public expenditure is likely to promote the competitiveness to which he has referred? Will he ensure that if corporation tax is devolved, it is devolved at a fair rate and in a way that does not make it—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should be grateful for a reply from the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

One of the impacts on the private sector will be the huge reduction of 40% in capital spending over the next four years, and there is disagreement about whether the settlement honours the St Andrews agreement settlement on capital spending. In the one area where there is dispute, does the capital settlement for Northern Ireland include capital spending on the police? Is that part of the Minister’s assessment of the total capital budget for Northern Ireland?

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman knows that under the previous Government the reduction was likely to be 50% of capital expenditure. Under us it is 37% over four years. In response to his comments on policing and justice, I can tell him that we stand by the commitments. As he knows, the Northern Ireland Executive’s capital allocation of £3.3 billion over the spending review period will permit those costs to be met, but there will be difficult decisions, and unfortunately it is up to the hon. Gentleman, as the Finance Minister at Stormont, to make those difficult decisions. It is up to him and the Executive, and I support his attempts to get them to form a budget.

Bloody Sunday Inquiry (Report)

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Woodward]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government brought forward what would become the Inquiries Act 2005. The purpose of that was to try to control costs. The issue of Lord Saville’s report touches on the crucial issue of the independence of inquiries. The House must seriously consider whether it would wish to compromise the independence of a judicial inquiry by saying, for example, that witnesses would not be allowed legal representation. That would have saved half the cost of Lord Saville’s report, but would we have got the truth if legal representation had not been allowed? By the same token, if we were to say to judges in future inquiries that we wanted to limit the number of witnesses and the amount of evidence that they could take, would that compromise their independence? It is a proper question for the right hon. Gentleman to ask and I take my share of responsibility for allowing this inquiry to go ahead as it did so that its independence was not compromised. That is why I make the careful distinction between the price and the value of the inquiry.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s explanation on that issue, but if the principles that he has outlined are followed in future inquiries—and there are already calls for inquiries on Murphy and other issues—the danger is that we could face huge bills in the future. Do not we need some means of curtailing costs and to put aside the argument that including any restriction will impinge on the independence of inquiries?

[Mr Woodward]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I may address it specifically a little later in my remarks.

What we have learned from this inquiry is shocking truth, and it is all the more shocking because what Lord Saville uncovered—and we are speaking of uncovering—runs so counter to what we would all want to believe of our armed forces. Hon. Members may have a difficult dilemma this afternoon, because they may feel that they have to make a choice between being supportive of the British Army or of the families. That is a false choice. The Prime Minister was right to assert that Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the service that more than 250,000 men and women of the British Army gave during the 38 years of Operation Banner. Their courage, dedication and commitment to public service for every community in Northern Ireland saved countless lives.

However, as the Secretary of State said, the Prime Minister was equally right to say that

“we do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible.”

What happened on Bloody Sunday was and remains indefensible. With no ambiguity, we know that the consequences of an order, which should not have been given, was the

“serious and widespread loss of fire discipline”

by members of Support Company of the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, who entered the Bogside.

The Prime Minister informed the House on 15 June that decisions on what would happen next would be for the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. That was five months ago. In fairness to the families whose loved ones lost their lives, and to the soldiers named in Lord Saville’s report, it is unfortunate that the Secretary of State has not been able to update the House today on progress on the issue of prosecution. When he was in opposition, the Secretary of State was quick to criticise the time taken by Lord Saville to produce his report. Can I gently remind him that he should hold himself to the same standards in government as he set for others when he was in opposition? Perhaps he will take an early opportunity to share with the House a progress report, not least for the families and for the soldiers.

The Prime Minister also told the House on 15 June that he would want to take some time

“to digest the report’s full findings and understand all the implications.”

He told the House that he would ask the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and Defence to

“report back…on all the issues that arise from it.”

Given that five months have now elapsed, would the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Defence now agree to place their reports in the Library, if they have been concluded?

The Secretary of State will know that the implications of Saville go much further than the events of Bloody Sunday. They are not just relevant to the past of Northern Ireland, but to its present and to its future. The Prime Minister quoted from Lord Saville:

“What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed.”

What now happens in how we respond to this report, and in how we deal with the legacy issues of the past, also has the capacity to strengthen the peace process. The Secretary of State referred earlier to the “what if” factors in the report. His response today is also one of those factors. He should recognise that he is holding a very precious object in his hands. If we handle this wrongly, it also has the capacity to weaken the peace process.

There are those who will watch genuinely to see how the British Government responds to Saville because they too have lost loved ones. They too still seek the truth. Their cause is genuine. Their loss is genuine. Their grief is all too real. But they still understandably seek justice for their loss. Those families respect the truth that this inquiry has revealed. But they too now will seek their truth. This inquiry may, in their eyes, have answered the questions of the families whose lives were devastated by Bloody Sunday, but their questions about their loss remain. Indeed their expectations have been heightened by this report.

For some, this is genuinely about reconciliation. For others—only a small number—this inquiry and others like it may become a means to keep old hatreds and antagonisms going. I recognise that. Most worrying, there are those—the so-called dissidents—whose only wish is to bring chaos and violence back to the streets of Northern Ireland, and who will watch very carefully how the British Government now respond to the Saville report. Those people wish to see how the grief of others can be exploited, and how justice can be turned to injustice. Their wish is to pervert the outcome and to twist the truth into a perverted logic that can be used to build community support for a violent struggle for the years ahead. The response of the Government today must ensure that this group have no opportunity, no chance to make cause from a grievance or a sense of justice denied. Likewise, the Government should ensure that the resources and means are available, should the buck be passed, to enable the Executive and the institutions of the political process in Northern Ireland to respond appropriately.

There are two essential issues here. The first is to ensure that how we handle the past is fair. The second is to ensure that the response is appropriate, adequate and proportionate. For as we think of the families affected by Bloody Sunday, so too we must think of so many others whose lives were altered irrevocably by the troubles. Lord Saville may have offered the beginning of peace of mind to those affected by that terrible day, but what of others, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) asked. How can this process be fair for others? What of the other families of the more than 3,500 men, women and children who also lost their lives?

One example—and I am sure that all hon. Members will have been moved each time they have heard it—comes from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), who asked:

“How do we get closure, how do we get justice, and how do we get the truth?”

Justice cannot be the possession of one community, but not another. Justice can no more be the province of a nationalist than of a Unionist. The process must be felt to belong to all. The search for truth loses its value if it may be owned by one community, but not another. The Government must be very careful in how they tread.

The Prime Minister said:

“It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness, but let me reassure the House that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past.”

I understand what led the Prime Minister to these remarks. Indeed, the whole House shares the concern about the cost of the inquiry, but to state unequivocally that

“there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past”

is in my judgment rash, and it is a huge risk. It is a risk not just to the political process, but one that could yet shake the foundations of the peace process itself. The House will know the importance that Justice Cory attached to the inquiries that he recommended to the British and Irish Governments should be set up.

Given what the Prime Minister said in this House on 15 June and given the Secretary of State’s comments in the House, where does this leave the Finucane inquiry to which the British Government committed themselves? The family were promised an inquiry. The House will recall that delay in its establishment was occasioned by a disagreement over such an inquiry proceeding under the terms of the 2005 Act. However, I made it clear when I was Secretary of State that if the difficulties continued once Lord Saville had published his report, we would as a matter of urgency make it clear how we would proceed.

Of course the cost of an inquiry would be relevant to weighing up the public interest, but the public interest would crucially also be weighed by the good faith established by the promise itself—faith that drew strength both from and to the stability of the political process and the stability of the peace process. The Secretary of State has kept us all waiting for nearly six months. He knows that he must be straight with Mr Finucane’s family, the people of Northern Ireland and this House, and he must be straight with the Irish and American Governments. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that as recently as 2008, during the presidential elections, the then Senator Obama made very clear his unequivocal support for an independent judicial inquiry, as recommended by Judge Cory.

In the words of the Prime Minister about Lord Saville’s report, these inquiries

“demonstrate how a state should hold itself to account and how we should be determined at all times—no matter how difficult—to judge ourselves against the highest standards.”

Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain and make it clear what has so changed that today the state need no longer hold itself to account on these issues? Indeed, if he has decided not to go ahead with an inquiry, when will he tell the House, and why the further delay? At the very least, will he take this opportunity to tell the House whether, as he promised, he has met Pat Finucane’s family? It is, after all, several months since he said he would.

The peace process is built on trust and fairness. The institutions that have grown out of the peace process have many parents. The process is undoubtedly less than perfect—sometimes carefully planned, sometimes a response to circumstance, sometimes a mechanism to find a way forward when roadblocks lie ahead. Let us imagine that the Secretary of State has taken the decision that, regardless of circumstance, there will be no more inquiries, and let us give the benefit of the doubt about why he has not yet been able to convey that to Pat Finucane’s family or to tell the families of those who lost loved ones at Balllymurphy, Omagh or Claudy that they will have no inquiry.

What are the Secretary of State’s alternative proposals? What is the mechanism he truly proposes for them to seek the truth, to seek justice? We must all hope he understands that he cannot leave nothing in its place. Others have tried to tempt an answer from him. Let me again acknowledge the hon. Member for South Antrim, who I am sorry is not in his place today. Although I do not share his particular prescription, he asked the Secretary of State to consider whether he would use the resources of individual inquiries, and put them at the disposal of the Historical Enquiries Team. The Secretary of State replied that he was “absolutely right”, but absolutely right about what? The Secretary of State may correct me, but I am not entirely sure that in saying that he was proposing to hand over the money, resources and additional funding that the British Government has used to fund judicial inquiries.

The House will rightly acknowledge the work of the Historical Enquiries Team. It is charged with examining the facts behind the deaths of more than 3,000 people in the troubles, and it has indeed done amazing work. It continues to bring closure to so many families who were denied for so many decades even the most basic information about how their loved ones may have died. But the Secretary of State must understand both what it is and what it is not, both what it has the means to do and what, given its limited resources, it cannot do. Its budget was set at £34 million over seven years to handle the 3,000-plus cases. That budget is virtually spent and it is half way through its case load, so it will need more money. However, its task and purpose are not to be compared, in any shape or form, with the work of a judicial inquiry.

Of course not every family wants a judicial inquiry, or a judicial-style tribunal. Indeed, most families—let us be frank—do not want any kind of inquiry. They simply want to leave the past where it is—in the past. They want an end, no more. Others just want the available facts, and, having been given them, they want to bring closure to their loss. That is what the HET does so well, and why its £34 million is appropriate for the work that it was asked to do, although clearly it will need more.

Complex or multiple cases that are linked by circumstances and need investigation are hugely time-consuming and sometimes very difficult to investigate. Even with the resources of a fully funded legal inquiry, the truth may remain evasive. The Secretary of State gave the very good example of Billy Wright. The inquiry answered many questions, but it left some unanswered—not least, how were guns smuggled into a prison regarded at the time as having the highest security in the whole of Europe? Some may say the inability ultimately to provide satisfactory answers to these questions throws into doubt the integrity of the inquiry system itself. Again, however, we should be very careful of reaching such a conclusion. Sometimes we may not get answers, but that does not invalidate the reason for asking the questions, and it does not invalidate the creation of a process that allows those questions to be asked.

The Billy Wright inquiry was complex. Its work cost more than £30 million, much of it on legal fees. Perhaps—I say this to the right hon. Member for Belfast North—we could find ways of doing that without some of the cost, but if a judicial inquiry could not find the answers to the questions posed by Bill Wright’s family, how would the HET have fared better? It is an institution whose overall budget is less than that spent by this single inquiry.

I do not question the Prime Minister’s motives when he told the House on 15 June

“I think that it is right to use, as far as possible, the Historical Enquires Team to deal with the problems of the past”—[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c.740-55.]

but perhaps the Secretary of State should be a little more candid with his right hon. Friend. Is he really wise to suggest to the Prime Minister that the HET is the appropriate vehicle, adequately resourced, to handle such a complex inquiry, and to ask the HET to take on the work of a Billy Wright investigation, or complex investigations into, for example, Pat Finucane’s death or, as it touches on 1 Para, the death of those who died at Ballymurphy in August 1971? To ask that of the HET is, frankly, as burdensome and as impossible as it borders on being incredulous. With present resources, some things can be done, but some cannot. Even if resources were made available, some investigations, such as that into the death of Pat Finucane, could not be carried by a body such as the HET. Although it is fair and works impartially, it is clearly not as fully independent as a public inquiry, and it is not, as Justice Cory would want, international.

The HET is currently the subject of approval and admiration from all communities in Northern Ireland, but asking it to carry out such investigations might risk damaging its reputation in its other crucial and vital work. The Secretary of State must be very careful how he proceeds with changing the HET’s remit, if that is what he proposes.

The Secretary of State must also be careful to avoid suspicion about his motives. We cannot maintain a peace process on the cheap. We all want to save money, but some savings risk being false economies, and some are cleverly disguised, being more about passing on the bill while still expecting it to be drawn from someone else’s cheque book and account. At present, it is the Government here in Westminster who pay for inquiries into the past. The funding for the HET comes directly from the Executive and the Northern Ireland block grant. Unless the Secretary of State specifically intends to make additional financial support available from Westminster to the HET, it is little short of disingenuous to ask it to take on these hugely onerous responsibilities, even if that were the right thing to do, without significant additional funding. Again I remind the Secretary of State that good faith is as vital in ensuring the peace today as it was in building its foundations.

So what are the Government to do if they wish to keep faith? The Secretary of State has at his disposal the advice and work of the Consultative Group on the Past. The work of Lord Eames and Denis Bradley was extremely important. Their different, but collective, experiences drawn from the years of the troubles made them absolutely the right people to co-chair the consultative group. However, although the Prime Minister referred to their work in his statement of 15 June, I fear that he was directed at only one part of their report. The Secretary of State will know that we share the view that the idea of universal recognition payments should be completely rejected, so that is not a reason to ignore their report. I remind him that it contains nearly 30 other proposals that are very much worth considering and developing.

The Secretary of State has described the impasse in which he finds himself, given the absence of a consensus in the public consultation to the report. I really think he is going to have to do better than that. Yes, it is difficult, but that is what government is all about: making difficult choices, being determined and taking responsibility for finding consensus, even when it eludes everyone else. Building the peace process in Northern Ireland was difficult. There was no consensus, no prescription for a peace process and no route map to a political process. That is the responsibility of the Government. Their job is to find consensus, not to despair or wave a white flag in a declaration of defeat. For it is now that Northern Ireland needs to develop a process for reconciliation. Just as it built a peace process, and then a political process, so now it must establish and develop a comprehensive reconciliation process to deal with the legacy issues. This does not have to be by judicial inquiry, but we cannot leave nothing in place of that. Of course, such a process, and such a determination, will meet opposition, and some of it will be truly genuine, truly felt and deeply sincere. We can respect that, but the job of the British Government, and the Secretary of State, is to help to build and nurture such a process.

Northern Ireland is devolved, but the problems of the past are not. They are not cast off simply because policing and justice have been devolved by this House. Northern Ireland is, after all, part of the Union, until it becomes otherwise by consent. It is our responsibility; it is part of the family. We cannot walk by on the other side of the street. For the past, we all bear the burdens of responsibility and accountability. For the future, we all bear the responsibility to ensure the success of the future shared.

This inquiry speaks not just to those whose lives were changed for ever by Bloody Sunday. The lessons today are for us all. As Lord Eames observed in another place, it is a mark of real hope for the long term that the inquiry has been genuinely embraced, and embraced beyond sectarian lines. This hope is like a window: it is open now, but we should not presume that it will be open indefinitely. The duty of the Government now is to capture this hope, and use it as a resource to marshal and foster reconciliation. The past is not another country; it is as much our country. The past cannot be painted out of history; nor can it be wished away.

Saville reveals that the opportunity for reconciliation has truly come. Let the authors of this process be drawn from the communities of Northern Ireland, but let the Government give leadership. Out of the terrible loss and pain of these Derry families, let the Government seize the challenge. Let us not just say that we are sorry; let us mean that we are sorry. Let us provide the leadership, establish a due process for reconciliation, resource the present and meet the legacy of the past. We must take that next step and help to release Northern Ireland from the grip of its deeply troubled and continuingly painful past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy]

It depends what the hon. Gentleman means by political. I am not saying for a moment that it was a party political issue. I used the term “political” in the sense that it was part of the bigger picture to achieve peace. Both things together were important. Clearly, the nationalist community, the Irish Government, the American Government and people generally believed that we had to deal with this particular issue in the way that we did. That does not mean for one second that we did not have to deal with the other issues as well—I shall touch on them in a few moments—but Bloody Sunday was part of the problem.

There was a time some years later, after I had become Secretary of State, when I was troubled about the costs. At that time, it fell to me to deal with the direct government of Northern Ireland as well as the peace process, and £200 million is a great deal of money. Money was needed for hospitals, schools and other services to run a society in Northern Ireland, and of course those costs troubled me. They troubled me to such an extent that when some years later I agreed with the Canadian Judge Cory that there should be four public inquiries—into the cases of Wright, Hamill, Nelson and Finucane—we decided to use a different mechanism, through the 2005 Act and other Acts of Parliament, in the hope of making the process cheaper. In fact, the cost of those inquiries turned out to be £30-odd million.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) about Finucane. I gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that there would be some form of judicial inquiry into the Finucane case. None of that means that we undervalue the loss of the lives of people who served in the armed forces, the security forces or the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Thousands upon thousands of members of the armed forces and the RUC died as a consequence of the troubles, and we must never forget the sacrifice that they made. However, the Army is an organ of the state. In a liberal democracy the state has a responsibility to ensure that the Army does the right thing, and that is why the Saville inquiry turned out as it did.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see where his argument is leading? It appears that, for political reasons and, he says, to advance the peace process, it was considered necessary to hold an inquiry into what had happened in Londonderry, but it was not considered necessary to hold an inquiry into the deaths of many RUC soldiers and innocent civilians who had been killed by terrorists.

[Paul Murphy]

All that took place over a period of 15 years or so. One of the purposes of the Historical Enquiries Team, in which I was involved, was to enable us to satisfy all parts of the community that we were dealing with the past.

Let me repeat that the primary purpose of the Bloody Sunday inquiry was to establish the truth: to find out what had happened, and whether the Army was culpable. The inquiry found that it was culpable. However, another purpose of the inquiry and, indeed, of Judge Cory’s recommendations, was to maintain the process of bringing peace to Northern Ireland. Ensuring that the peace process continues is a noble cause, not an ignoble one, and if it means that we must deal with the past in whatever form, it is right and proper for that to happen.

The fact that 3,500 people have died over 30 years and tens of thousands have been injured in one way or another must be addressed, and the savagery and wickedness experienced by Northern Ireland in those 30 years was not confined to one side. How should that be dealt with? Let me draw the Secretary of State’s attention to two issues. The first is cost. Of course these are difficult times, but, although this may seem a truism, Northern Ireland is a special case. When Senator George Mitchell concluded the Good Friday agreement on Good Friday 1998, he said that it was the beginning, not the end, of a process. He was right. Since then there have been tremendous developments, in which the DUP and other parties in Northern Ireland have played a huge part, but the process will not end overnight. We must have a system that involves spending money, because we must ensure that if the Northern Ireland Executive have to take on certain responsibilities, their funding must be adequate.