Hallett Review

Shaun Woodward Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The Chairman of the Select Committee is absolutely right. The report makes some very serious criticisms of the way in which the scheme was operated, and those will have difficult consequences that will need to be dealt with. However, I assure the House that the Government are determined that they will be dealt with. Lady Justice Hallett concluded that the errors could be corrected, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that they are corrected, acting on the basis of advice from lawyers, prosecutors and police.

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to concern about the terms of the caveats that were placed in the letters. Lady Justice Hallett is very clear about the fact that insufficient consideration was given to them. In some cases, they were left out altogether. My colleagues and I will be looking into that carefully to establish what, if anything, needs to be done to ensure that the errors that my hon. Friend has highlighted are corrected.

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

I, too, thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of the report, and join her in remembering not only the victims of the Hyde Park bombing, but all the people to whom the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) referred who lost their lives in the course of the troubles. I also thank Lady Justice Hallett for a very comprehensive report. As a former Secretary of State, I accept all the findings, observations and criticisms contained in it.

There are important things that we need to learn. I have three brief questions to ask the right hon. Lady, in the light of chapter 9 of the report. First, does she accept that the Northern Ireland Office still has responsibility for the scheme, and that it was not devolved? Secondly, does her statement that the scheme is now closed mean that the letters—as Lady Justice Hallett asked—have been rescinded or have not been rescinded? Thirdly, given that the right hon. Lady has made it clear today that the scheme has been closed—which I do not think Lady Justice Hallett fully appreciated—will she now tell us where that leaves the cases that were still under review?

[Mrs Villiers]

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the scheme was devolved. As I have said in the House on many occasions, in August 2012 my predecessor and the then Attorney-General decided that it would not be appropriate for the Northern Ireland Office to accept any new cases, and that any fresh cases should be referred by Sinn Fein to devolved police and prosecuting authorities.

A debate has raged on the exact position of the scheme in terms of devolution. I discussed the matter with the Minister of State for Justice this morning. I think that the best way of putting it is that the Northern Ireland Office will not shirk its responsibilities in learning from these mistakes, correcting any errors, and taking any appropriate action that is needed to remove barriers to prosecution. We will do that in partnership with the Department of Justice, and respecting the devolution settlement. Exactly who does what and how it is done will be a matter for reflection in the coming days, and I will undoubtedly update the House in due course.

As for the closure of the scheme, I announced some months ago that it was closed. The Government will not be issuing any fresh “not wanted” indications. As I have made clear today, what we will do is play our part in correcting any mistakes and ensuring that everything that possibly can be done is done to remove any future barriers to prosecutions in other cases.

High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Shaun Woodward Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by all hon. Members about those who lost their lives in the Hyde park and Regent park bombings. They were terrible crimes on the day they were committed, and some decades later they remain terrible crimes. It is always difficult to follow Members from Northern Ireland because they speak from such extraordinary personal experience and from personal loss. Sometimes it is really hard for other hon. Members, whatever their convictions, to speak after those who speak from the heart because they experienced the tragedy at home.

Listening to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am of the view that the need for Justice Hallett’s review is critical, and the Secretary of State is right to expedite it. There are disadvantages in it not being a full, independent judicial review, but we know from Lord Saville that the time it would take to assemble such a review would be extremely damaging, not only to the ongoing political process in Northern Ireland but to the peace process. Indeed, the arguments around that so-called euphemism, “on-the-runs”, are testimony to why I think this review needs to come up with its findings quickly.

I was Secretary of State by a few weeks when the letter was issued to Mr Downey. As such, I take responsibility for my officials in the Northern Ireland Office, and I am happy to do so. They always acted with the most extraordinary integrity, and, as the Attorney-General set out when he spoke to the House a few weeks ago, there is no reason in any shape or form to doubt in any way the wisdom and actions of those officials or civil servants.

It is helpful to put on the record—again, I will co-operate with Justice Hallett however that is desired—that this was an administrative process. I absolutely understand the remarks of right hon. and hon. Members, and their questions about whether it was more than that, but I entirely endorse the view, expressed by the Secretary of State and by my predecessors, that the letters were designed to be statements of fact. They were part of an administrative scheme that, as the Attorney-General said, operated independently of the Government. It was intended to identify those individuals who, although they might believe they were unable to return to the jurisdiction without fear or arrest, would in fact face no prosecution or arrest if they were to return.

It is for Justice Hallett to ascertain whether that was the case, as I believe, but I put it on record that at no point during my tenure—which, I think, was the longest of any Secretary of State in Northern Ireland under the previous Administration—did I have reason to believe that it was ever more than an administrative process. That said, the judgment in the Downey case throws up some important questions that, as Secretary of State for those years, worry me greatly, and I am grateful to Justice Hallett for coming forward on this matter. In particular, paragraph 133 of the judgment makes it clear that:

“The PSNI did not alert the DPP (NI), or anyone else, to the fact that the defendant had been wanted by the Metropolitan Police in relation to the Hyde Park Bombing at the time of the critical correspondence in June/July 2007, or—”

and this should worry all of us—

“to the fact that the defendant was still wanted by the Metropolitan Police in…2008.”

Paragraph 137 states:

“Again, nothing was done to alert the DPP (NI), or anyone else, in relation to the defendant being wanted by the Metropolitan Police in connection with the Hyde Park Bombing.”

Those are very serious issues, and it is right that a judge consider them urgently. What they throw up is not that this was not an administrative process, but that there were clearly serious errors within that process. That throws up the question of when those errors were discovered, what happened to that information, and what course of action followed.

[Lady Hermon]

May I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to make it absolutely clear that during his long, and I think successful and happy time in Northern Ireland, the words “Operation Rapid” were not words that he heard, and he did not know about them until he read the Downey judgment? Is that what he is saying to the House?

[Mr Woodward]

Dare I say that there is a fashion when former Secretaries of State, as it were, and sometimes even serving Ministers, can sometimes hide behind forms of words? I am not suggesting that to the hon. Lady for a moment. I am not aware that we discussed the words “Operation Rapid”, but it is more than possible that pieces of paper will be found on which that phrase will appear. I say simply to the hon. Lady that it would be disingenuous for me remotely to suggest that I did not know we had an administrative process in order to establish facts. What was absolutely clear to me, by whatever name it was known, is that this was a factual operation, and in no way was the Northern Ireland Office, in any shape or form, at any point in the time I was there, or known to me before or after, interfering in that process. It was a matter of delivering those points of information.

Let me be clear to the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) that, if the letters, in any shape or form, were reprieves or amnesties, I would share the feelings they have set out this afternoon, but at no point was I led to believe, at no point did I believe, and at no point did anybody ever tell me, that the letters could or would be used as reprieves or amnesties. They were statements of fact. I entirely understand hon. Members’ feelings if they believe the letters were anything other than that. They were not designed to be a reprieve or an amnesty. They were designed only as statements of fact to tell those people whether they were or were not wanted.

[Lady Hermon]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity. Norman Baxter, who is not a Member of the House, was the PSNI officer in charge of the scheme and is named in the Downey judgment. He gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 11 November 2009. He said:

“One of my responsibilities before I retired was to conduct a review of on-the-runs, that is persons who are outside the jurisdiction. I can assure the Committee that there was an extremely unhealthy interest by officials in the Northern Ireland Office about prioritising individuals who were on the run and about ensuring that they were cleared to return to the North.”

That is not a term I would use, but it is what he said. In fairness to Norman Baxter, who was named and criticised in the Downey judgment, he has put it on the record that pressure was put on him by officials.

[Mr Woodward]

It is always dangerous to extrapolate from one person’s words and somebody else’s conclusion. One talks about “an interest”, but the hon. Lady’s refers to it as a “pressure”. All I can say to her is that, if there were questions from the Northern Ireland Office, as far as I am concerned, they could only ever be questions about facts. They could not in any way be about trying to interfere or change the outcome of any inquiry. The Secretary of State should know that, given the now legal status of the letters, the hon. Lady is entirely right to pose that question. It would be grossly misfortunate if the Justice were not to address that question. I remind the House that the situation is about an abuse of process, not just a letter. The entire process, of which the letter is a part, has been thrown up by the judgment.

That throws up the question of whether or not a status is conferred on the letters now—the letters were issued, as we thought, as statements of fact—that takes them beyond statements of fact. That is an issue of confidence. As the Secretary of State considers the debate—I expect her not to reply this afternoon, but to take away many of the considered comments made by right hon. and hon. Members—she should consider that the Downey judgment genuinely throws up the question whether or not letters issued in good faith by Ministers and the Northern Ireland Office as statements of fact are now more than statements of fact. If that is the case, the House deserves to know. It will be very difficult to rebuild confidence, which has been damaged across the process, without answering that question.

I am conscious of the time and do not wish to prevent other hon. Members from speaking. At the end of Justice Hallett’s review, we will have answers to some questions but not all. What will remain are questions of how we deal with some remaining dimensions of the past. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) rightly puts back on the table the issue of the soldiers who were named and effectively indicted through the Saville inquiry. For them, in their old age, terrible worries ensue. Nobody should be above justice and I would never argue that whoever may be involved should be above justice. However, the case throws the issue on to the table once again and the Secretary of State may wish to reconsider it. That does not mean dragging out the discredited 2005 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, but perhaps we are approaching a point at which it would be sensible to consider a process that allows us to deal quickly and effectively, but only if it is fair, with those individual cases that arise out of dealing with the past of the troubles in Northern Ireland. It is an intolerable situation for those paratroopers to face, as the hon. Member for Aldershot set out so eloquently. It is equally intolerable for those who were victims of the troubles. I am not remotely suggesting that we revive the discredited 2005 Bill, but we know that Northern Ireland needs to move out of the past—not in the sense of forgetting its past, but it needs to move out of the grip of the past where that part of the past is a millstone around its neck.

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the eloquence of the hon. Member for Aldershot. I would hope that in doing so he is not endorsing the hon. Member for Aldershot’s description of the events of Bloody Sunday as mistakes in the heat of the battle.

[Mr Woodward]

Not for one moment. The hon. Member for Aldershot was kind and generous enough to say that when I was Secretary of State I always tried to deal with all these issues with impartiality. That does not mean to say that I do not think it is quite proper for right hon. and hon. Members eloquently to make cases on behalf of those they wish to represent. Whatever view Members may have, the House would have to recognise the distinction with which the hon. Gentleman has represented the case of those who were, of course, serving British interests by being soldiers in Northern Ireland at the time. That is not in any way to be a judgment by me on whether they acted in one area or another, appropriately, rightly or wrongly, but it is none the less to recognise the role they played.

I very much hope that the House will find time to debate Justice Hallett’s review when it happens. Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm that the Government will give Government time for a full day’s debate on that review, because I think it is essential to rebuild the confidence that has been damaged by the errors that were made by the PSNI. It is crucial that the Government are able to re-establish confidence, and that this administrative process to deal with people finding out whether they were wanted or not wanted is restored to its credibility as an administrative scheme, and not some back-handed way of dealing with them in a special high-handed way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

I felt I answered the hon. Lady’s question by stating that the letters were simply statements of facts at the time, which means they do not have any formal legal status. They were not an amnesty; they were merely statements of fact. I appreciate that another key theme running through today’s debate, and a source of the grave anger and concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Belfast North, and the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for North Down, is that the facts of the scheme were not shared with the Northern Ireland Executive or fully shared with Parliament.

[Mr Woodward]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Villiers]

Not for the moment.

On behalf of the Government I have expressed regret that we did not discuss the scheme with Ministers in the Executive, especially after we concluded in August 2012 that any new cases should be directed to the devolved authorities. That was clearly a point at which we should have discussed the matter with the Justice Minister, but we did not. Today I repeat that apology for not sharing the information about the scheme with the First Minister or the Justice Minister, and I welcome the apology made by the shadow Secretary of State for Labour’s role and the way in which the scheme was administered under the previous Government.

The scheme and the era of side deals that undermined confidence in the political process must come to an end, and we now need to look forward. Whatever the conclusion of the inquiries now under way into the OTR controversy, the imperative to deal with issues such as flags, parading and the past, and to push for real reconciliation, is as strong as ever. Indeed, the events of recent weeks provide a further convincing reason why Northern Ireland needs an agreed way forward on the past, with structures that can operate in a balanced, accountable and above all transparent way and command public confidence. I hope that the whole House can agree on that as we express once again our strong and unified support for Northern Ireland and its continuing journey towards a genuinely shared and reconciled future.

[Mr Dodds]

In the two minutes I have, I shall sum up. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) rightly said, this issue affects not just people in Northern Ireland. It should affect Members from all parts of the United Kingdom. There are fundamental issues at stake.

[Mr Woodward]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Dodds]

Very briefly.

[Mr Woodward]

I am very grateful because the right hon. Gentleman gives me the chance to get on the record the fact that I deeply regret that the Secretary of State did not deal with the issue appropriately raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). It is absolutely essential to continue the process in a bipartisan way. I think the right hon. Gentleman would also wish to raise this concern. We need to establish whether the letters are simply statements of fact, as I believe, or whether or not, as a consequence of the Downey judgment, they have taken on a different perspective. That is absolutely crucial. I deeply regret that the Secretary of State did not take my intervention and am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for doing so.

[Mr Dodds]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. No doubt aspects of the debate have raised more questions than answers. However, I do not accept the validation of the scheme given by the shadow Minister. The legal status will come out when the judge makes her report, but, given the implementation of this secret deal, the way it was done and the reason it was kept secret, for anyone to think it was simply about statements of fact stretches credulity. We will come back to those issues.

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The themes we have touched on include putting victims at the heart of the matter—one theme was our concern for victims and justice. Another theme was the operation of the scheme and its effect. It is very clear in all quarters that there is no support whatever for any kind of amnesty. That is why there is anger about the way in which the scheme operated in effect in the Downey case.

We have explored the theme of what people knew and when. It is clear from contributions made by Members on both sides of the House that there is a consensus that politicians in Northern Ireland were kept in the dark, that Parliament was effectively kept in the dark, and that people knew about the scheme only if they were members of Sinn Fein. I acknowledge what the Secretary of State said about the fact that she kept the Northern Ireland Executive in the dark, even after the scheme was stopped. It would be useful to have an explanation of why that decision was taken.

Another theme is that the process was one-sided. The one-sidedness of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland is currently a massive issue. This issue plays into that.

I welcome the inquiries. Lady Justice Hallett has said today that she will fully and rigorously examine the scheme from its inception to date.

I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record some truths about the issue, but there will be an opportunity to return to it, and I look forward to doing so. All hon. Members can be assured that, as far as the Democratic Unionist party is concerned, unless it is very clear that the full truth emerges, that Downey or a case like it can never happen again, that the on-the-run scheme is put to bed completely—the Secretary of State has said that it is over—that the legal status of the letters is made clear, and that they do not protect anyone from now on and are effectively rescinded, we will have to return to this issue and deal with it again.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the background to and implications of the High Court judgment on John Downey.

Pat Finucane

Shaun Woodward Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Sir Desmond is an independent figure, and it is not for us to interfere in any way in how he conducts the review and the manner in which he proceeds. We have to get the message across that he is an independent figure, and a man of extraordinary integrity and international standing. He is not going to take any advice or accept any interference from the Government. That is not his role. We have appointed him, he is independent, and it is up to him to report back to us in December 2012.

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

I have no doubt that the Secretary of State means well, but I think he is wrong. The inquiry was set up by Tony Blair as part of the peace process, and in breaking the promise that we gave, we are damaging the very foundations of that process. The independent inquiry was fair to everyone; it was fair to the family and the soldiers.

Let me set out my fear. The Secretary of State has said today that he has reached a verdict: there was state collusion. No account has been given of the process by which that verdict has now been reached, however, and we do not know collusion by whom or collusion about what. In this process, we must be fair to the armed forces: we must be fair to those soldiers and members of the police who may need legal representation now. What are they meant to do? Will the Secretary of State guarantee that any men and women who may face prosecution in the future because of his verdict today will be able to have a fair trial?

[Mr Paterson]

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not supported what we have done. I pay tribute to his work as Secretary of State. He managed to pull off the great coup of seeing the final plank of devolution put in place. Getting the devolution of policing and justice was not an easy task. We worked together, supporting him strongly at the time, and it was a considerable achievement. The House should recognise that and be grateful.

Obviously, given the right hon. Gentleman’s knowledge, I am disappointed by his comments. I do not wish to make a tiresome point, but I did write to Mrs Finucane and met her—he did not. He had three years to resolve this and did not do so. We talked about it privately and we both know how extraordinarily difficult the conundrum was. He stuck to the line, which we have heard again from his successor—it is totally understandable and coherent—that a public inquiry was offered, under the Inquiries Act 2005. We inherited a logjam; I really felt that this issue was festering. People must get hold of the boldness of what we have done. The Prime Minister has invited the family in to apologise in person. We are going to have a really thorough review. Sir Desmond is not a patsy; he is a man of extraordinary integrity and international repute. I fear that the report may be very difficult for us, but we will come to the House, as we did with Saville, with Nelson and with Wright, and make appropriate comments.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions individuals. Stevens, after probably the longest criminal investigation in British history, said clearly in his report:

“I have uncovered enough evidence to lead me to believe that”—

the murder—

of Patrick Finucane…could have been prevented.”

He continued:

“I conclude there was collusion in”—

the murder—

“and the circumstances surrounding”

it. The problem is that there is no offence of collusion, which is why we have appointed Sir Desmond. As I said in answer to a previous question, should evidence come forward that, in the opinion of the DPP, goes over the threshold, the legal process will take its course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shaun Woodward Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s interest in Northern Ireland, and I hope that it will continue. I hope also that he will join me in celebrating the jobs that the service sector in Northern Ireland has attracted. The New York stock exchange has attracted 400 new jobs; Citigroup financial services will attract 500 jobs over the next five years; and the law firm Allen and Overy has attracted 300 jobs in Belfast. To answer his question directly, I would say that Northern Ireland is a great place for the service industries. It is open and we want more investment, and I hope that he and his party will join us in making that happen.

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

Well that all sounds very good, but in the past 12 months, the Northern Ireland claimant count has increased by 7%. That is the biggest increase in the UK and 21 times the national average. The Minister will know that the Northern Bank/Oxford Economics survey has now dramatically downgraded economic growth forecasts in Northern Ireland to 1.1% from a previous forecast of 1.9%. The Northern Ireland economy needs help now. What is the Minister going to do?

[Mr Swire]

It is regrettable that the Secretary of State is talking Northern Ireland down—[Interruption.] The independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s recent updated fiscal and economic forecasts show that the Government’s plans will deliver sustainable growth in each of the next five years with employment rising by 1.1 million by 2015 across the UK and the deficit falling. That of course includes Northern Ireland. The unemployment rate for Northern Ireland was down by 0.8% over the quarter and the number of unemployed people in Northern Ireland was estimated at 61,000—down 6,000 over the quarter. It is because of the Government’s determination to tackle the deficit and the legacy we inherited from a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was part that these figures are good.

[Mr Woodward]

Regrettably, the only thing that is going down is an economic forecast from 1.9% to 1.1%. Undoubtedly the Minister will update his brief in due course. The Secretary of State proposes a change in corporation tax rates to help in the long term. I seek clarification. We know that the immediate impact of the cut in the block grant will be the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the public sector, especially in education. However, if the policy in the medium term creates jobs, it follows that there will be additional revenue from income tax and a decrease in welfare payments. He wants the public sector, especially in education, to take the pain now, but in the future, if those benefits flow from increases in jobs and tax revenues, will the Treasury keep the money or will it go to the people of Northern Ireland?

[Mr Swire]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of corporation tax. There has been widespread consultation on the issue, and all the political parties in Northern Ireland support devolving the power to Northern Ireland. We believe that it will bring growth and jobs; equally, we believe that it is important to rebalance Northern Ireland’s economy, regardless of the situation that we inherited. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman represents an English constituency, and he will be aware that Northern Ireland receives about 25% more in spend per head of the population than England. It is therefore important that we rebalance Northern Ireland’s economy and allow it to grow.

Rosemary Nelson Inquiry Report

Shaun Woodward Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the report into the death of Rosemary Nelson, which is being published this afternoon. Mrs Nelson, a solicitor, was murdered close to her home in Lurgan, County Armagh, on 15 March 1999 when a bomb attached to her car exploded. Responsibility for the murder was claimed by the so-called “loyalist” paramilitary group, the Red Hand Defenders.

I will first set out the report’s main conclusions before moving on to outline its findings on the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Office and the murder investigation. I will also set out the context in which this tragic event happened. The inquiry was established by the previous Government and was asked to determine

“whether any wrongful act or omission by or within the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Northern Ireland Office, Army or other state agency facilitated her death or obstructed the investigation of it, or whether attempts were made to do so; whether any such act or omission was intentional or negligent; whether the investigation of her death was carried out with due diligence; and to make recommendations.”

I would like to put on the record my thanks to Sir Michael Morland and his fellow panel members Dame Valerie Strachan and Sir Anthony Burden for their work. They have produced a detailed account of the circumstances surrounding this despicable and cowardly murder. This is a lengthy report that has cost £46.5 million and taken six years to complete. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in hoping that it brings a measure of resolution to Rosemary Nelson’s family.

The report finds that

“There is no evidence of any act by or within any of the state agencies we have examined (the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Office, the Army or the Security Service) which directly facilitated Rosemary Nelson’s murder”.

The report goes on to say that

“we cannot exclude the possibility of a rogue member or members of the RUC or the Army in some way assisting the murderers to target Rosemary Nelson”,

although the panel does not provide specific evidence on this.

Those who are looking for evidence that the state conspired in or planned the death of Rosemary Nelson will not find it in this report. It does say that

“there were omissions by state agencies, which rendered Rosemary Nelson more at risk and more vulnerable; the combined effect of these omissions by the RUC and the NIO was that the state failed to take reasonable and proportionate steps to safeguard the life of Rosemary Nelson. If Rosemary Nelson had been given advice about her safety and offered security measures, then assuming that she had accepted such advice and security measures, the risk to her life and her vulnerability would have been reduced”.

The report does however recognise that

“There is nothing that any organisation can do that will infallibly prevent a murder. What can be reasonably looked for is a reduction in the risk”.

I am profoundly sorry that omissions by the state rendered Rosemary Nelson more at risk and more vulnerable. It is also deeply regrettable that, despite a very thorough police investigation, no one has been charged for this terrible crime.

On the investigation into the murder, which was led by a senior police officer from outside Northern Ireland, the report describes it as “exhaustive, energetic and enterprising”, concluding that

“there is no evidence of any deliberate attempt by any of the organs of the state corporately to obstruct the investigation”.

On the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the panel finds that

“some members of the RUC publicly abused and assaulted Rosemary Nelson on the Garvaghy Road in Portadown in 1997, having the effect of legitimising her as a target.”

The report states that

“we believe that there was some leakage of intelligence which we believe found its way outside the RUC”;

that

“the leakage increased the danger to Rosemary Nelson’s life”;

and that

“some members of the RUC made abusive and/or threatening remarks about Rosemary Nelson to her clients.”

In addition, the report states that

“in assessing whether or not Rosemary Nelson’s life was at risk, RUC Special Branch failed to take into account all the intelligence and the open information available to them…RUC management negligently failed to intervene to prevent their officers from uttering abuse and threats to defence solicitors, including Rosemary Nelson…Local RUC management failed to follow through promised action to pay special attention to Rosemary Nelson’s office and home addresses…there was no analysis or evaluation of intelligence relevant to Rosemary Nelson…there was a corporate failure by the RUC to warn Rosemary Nelson of her vulnerability and offer her security advice”.

In relation to the Northern Ireland Office, the report concludes that

“the NIO did not press the RUC hard enough for full replies to their questions concerning Rosemary Nelson's personal security…the NIO should have proactively questioned the RUC as to what factors were considered in producing a threat assessment…the NIO dealt in a mechanistic way with correspondence from Non-Governmental Organisations raising concerns about Rosemary Nelson's safety.”

The panel, in its findings relating to the accusations of obstruction by the state in the murder investigation, identifies:

“Special Branch gave levels of information unprecedented in the history of the RUC to the Murder Investigation Team”.

The panel also finds that the investigation team had wide-ranging terms of reference and was generously resourced, but that special branch co-operation was incomplete. Special branch was, it states,

“over-possessive about their intelligence…unjustifiably resentful and defensive about any enquiry which they interpreted as treating them as potential suspects…omitted to disclose all items of relevant intelligence”.

The panel concludes, however, that

“in the main, the investigation was carried out to a high standard, in very difficult conditions”,

and says:

“Overall, the investigation of the murder was carried out with due diligence”.

The panel has chosen not to make any recommendations, pointing to

“fundamental changes to the organisations that we have been examining and to the context within which they worked”.

In particular, the panel notes:

“The Royal Ulster Constabulary has now been replaced by the PSNI, on the lines envisaged by the Patten Commission. Many of the reforms were first proposed, and subsequently implemented, by Sir Ronnie Flanagan…Complaints against the police are now investigated by the independent Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, so the PSNI is not in the position of having to investigate complaints about its own officers…After the murder of Rosemary Nelson, the Key Persons Protection Scheme was amended: defence solicitors were included among those who could qualify for the scheme”.

The report concludes that

“we consider that these changes effectively deal with the systemic problems that we saw in the way that the organisations operated”.

The three panel members say in their foreword:

“We recognise that the context in which these events happened was extraordinarily difficult. We do not underestimate the problems and personal danger faced by the agencies and individuals whose work we have been examining. For example, during the Troubles, over 300 RUC officers lost their lives and over 7000 were injured; over 700 British military personnel were killed and over 6000 were injured”.

At times, such personnel stood quite literally between the rule of law and the descent into anarchy. All of us owe them an immense debt of gratitude, and that is something that this Government will never forget.

The report does make criticisms of the RUC, and we should not seek to gloss over them. But it would be wrong for the criticisms in the report to be used in any way to denigrate the overall record, courage and sacrifice of the RUC. Despite the enormous progress heralded by the agreement, Northern Ireland was still emerging from 30 years of terrorist violence in 1999. With both loyalist and republican dissidents continuing to carry out attacks, the security situation remained dangerous. As the report says,

“there were violent groups who were implacably opposed to the Peace Process who were prepared to commit sectarian murder”.

In conclusion, it is clear that just as Lord Saville found no evidence of a conspiracy by the British state, and just as Lord MacLean found no evidence of state collusion in the murder of Billy Wright, so this panel finds no evidence of any act by the state which directly facilitated Rosemary Nelson’s murder.

This report is a detailed and authoritative account of the circumstances surrounding Rosemary Nelson’s horrific death. Politically motivated violence can never be justified. The whole House will wish to join me in condemning her vile murder and also extending our deepest sympathies to her family. I commend this statement to the House.

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

Rosemary Nelson was a prominent and diligent human rights lawyer who worked hard to protect the rights of her clients. Rosemary Nelson was also a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister and a friend to many. She was killed by a loyalist paramilitary group shortly after midday on 15 March 1999. I join others in this House in offering my deepest sympathy to her family and her friends.

Today we have the final determinations of the inquiry. I thank the Secretary of State for a copy of his statement on those determinations and an advance opportunity to read the inquiry report. I also pay tribute to the inquiry chairman, Sir Michael Morland, to his panel members, and to the supporting Law Officers and officials.

The Secretary of State and I have both read the conclusion of the inquiry report, but I am afraid that I am unable to draw the same comfort about the findings and implications as he has done in his statement. The inquiry raises very serious issues about the police and about the Northern Ireland Office. In recognising this inquiry’s criticisms about policing, the inquiry does not take away our profound admiration for the outstanding courage and bravery of the men and women of the police family—and that of course includes the RUC—and of the Northern Ireland Office, at which I have had the privilege to be Secretary of State. I record again my thanks for the outstanding professionalism and fairness with which it was my experience to work at first hand.

However, this inquiry makes uncomfortable reading for both agencies. These agencies have undoubtedly, by what they have done, ensured that many lives have been protected from terrorist target. Indeed, we will never know just how many people might have been killed or how many people alive today were targets. However, we can be grateful to these agencies and at the same time set apart wrongdoing and failings. What is clear is that in the case of Rosemary Nelson, her death was not inevitable. The Secretary of State quoted from the report:

“There is nothing that any organisation can do that will infallibly prevent a murder. What can be reasonably looked for is a reduction in the risk”.

Well, that reduction was not reasonable. The risk could have been reduced, and it was not reduced. There were failings.

It is important to separate out the investigation into Mrs Nelson’s murder, which the inquiry described as “exhaustive, energetic and enterprising”, although

“not perfect in every respect”,

and, equally importantly, the fact that the inquiry found “no evidence of any” organisations of the state attempting

“to obstruct the investigation of the murder”.

We can distinguish this from the failure of measures to protect her life which brought about her murder. Here we have very uncomfortable reading—more uncomfortable than I think the Secretary of State recognises. It is uncomfortable for the RUC and the NIO of that time. Having reached that view, questions should also be asked about the process of threat assessments even today.

The report disturbs me. Given what was known, why was Rosemary Nelson not protected? That is our question. The report states:

“She was a very public figure and thence an obvious trophy target.”

The inquiry concluded:

“Any reasonable, thorough and objective assessment could only have reached the conclusion that general intelligence, circumstances and recent events indicated that Rosemary Nelson was at significant risk.”

On the RUC, the inquiry found that “management negligently failed”, that “local RUC management failed”, that there was

“no analysis or evaluation of intelligence in relation to Rosemary Nelson”,

and that there was

“corporate failure to warn Rosemary Nelson of her vulnerability.”

Of the NIO, the inquiry found that there were omissions rather than commission. The NIO did not press the RUC hard enough for full replies on Mrs Nelson’s security, it did not press the police on disparities between what the NIO was being told about the threat and what the RUC had concluded in its threat assessments, and it was too mechanistic. Crucially, the inquiry says of the NIO that

“there is no evidence of any internal policy discussion about the treatment of defence lawyers in general or Rosemary Nelson in particular.”

All this taken together is damning. As the inquiry concludes:

“The combined effect of these omissions by the RUC and the NIO was that the state failed to take reasonable and proportionate steps to safeguard the life of Rosemary Nelson.”

It continues:

“If Rosemary Nelson had been given advice about her safety and offered security measures, then assuming she accepted such advice and security measures, the risk to her life and her vulnerability would have been reduced.”

A worrying feature of the report is the incompleteness, or what some might see as evasiveness, in giving proper answers to reasonable questions from the inquiry. The inquiry states that it was not told that special branch

“did not maintain a paper file on Rosemary Nelson”.

Indeed, when Colin Port, who led the investigation into the murder asked about that,

“he was given an incomplete answer, and as regards whether Rosemary Nelson had an SB number, an incorrect one.”

In fact, the inquiry found that Mrs Nelson had not one number, but two. It was told that if she had had a special branch number, a special branch file would most likely have been created. The inquiry generously says:

“We cannot exclude the possibility that a paper file on Rosemary Nelson did at one time exist, but was lost or destroyed.”

It beggars belief, given that no one has yet been convicted of Mrs Nelson’s murder, that files of the state could have been allowed to be destroyed or lost during an ongoing murder investigation. That matters, because it is clear that specific views were formed by police officers that would undoubtedly have added to the risks to Mrs Nelson had they reached wider circulation.

The report needs to be read carefully. The inquiry found—you will be worried by this, Mr Speaker—that special branch in the south region, in the preparation for an application for a warrant to be signed by the Secretary of State, but which was not ultimately authorised, said of Mrs Nelson and the Provisional IRA that

“she openly supports their cause and intelligence states she has flouted the law”,

and that

“Nelson uses her legal training to assist PIRA in every way she can and it is clear Nelson is a dedicated Republican”.

That is why the conclusions of the report are so disturbing.

We may never be sure of the specific consequences of these failings. However, the inquiry states that there was an incident of abuse and assault on Mrs Nelson by members of the RUC, that there was a

“leakage of intelligence which we believe found its way outside the RUC.”

It states that the leakage and threatening remarks

“would have had the subsequent effect of legitimising her as a target in the eyes of Loyalist terrorists.”

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am loth on a matter of enormous importance and sensitivity to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has substantially exceeded his allotted time already. I know that he will bring his remarks to a speedy close.

[Mr Woodward]

I will, Mr Speaker.

The question that the Secretary of State must address is whether those acts of omission, negligence, failure and prejudice and a mechanistic Northern Ireland Office mean that we are in a very different position from the conclusion of the Wright inquiry, contrary to his statement today. I urge him to examine Justice Cory’s original proposals for the inquiries. Collusion is not just a matter of commission; it may also be an issue of omission. This does not prove collusion, but today the Secretary of State has been too hasty in his dismissal.

[Mr Paterson]

I have to say that I regret the shadow Secretary of State’s tone. I made it quite clear in my statement that there were criticisms of state agencies, and on his basic question—if there was a question—of why Mrs Nelson was not protected, I made it quite clear that there were analyses of her security status by the RUC and she was twice deemed not to be at risk. However, the key point is that she did not ask for protection.

It is not for me, who read the report overnight, or the right hon. Gentleman, who has had a shorter time than I had to read it, to second-guess this enormous work. What comes out quite clearly from this very lengthy report is that there were omissions, and that if they had not happened, the risk to Mrs Nelson would have been reduced. However, the report is quite clear that, sadly:

“There is nothing that any organisation can do that will infallibly prevent a murder. What can be reasonably looked for is a reduction in the risk.”

It is the fact that we did not reduce the risk—his Government was in charge at the time—for which I have apologised on behalf of the British state.

Murder of PC Ronan Kerr

Shaun Woodward Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the murder of Police Constable Ronan Kerr in Omagh on Saturday afternoon. Shortly before 4 pm, a device exploded, destroying his car in Highfield close, a quiet residential neighbourhood in the town: 25-year-old Constable Kerr died as a result of his injuries. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathies and heartfelt condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of this brave young officer. He was a local man who, having gained a university degree, decided upon a career in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. He dedicated his life to the service of the whole community; the terrorists who murdered him want to destroy that community. The contrast could not be clearer.

These terrorists continue to target police officers and endanger the lives of the public. We all pay tribute to the PSNI and the Garda for their remarkable commitment and for their success in thwarting a number of recent attacks. Working seamlessly together, last year they charged 80 people with terrorist offences, compared with 17 in 2009. However, regrettably, on Saturday a device exploded, killing Constable Kerr. His murder was a revolting and cowardly act perpetrated by individuals intent on defying the wishes of the people.

Following Saturday’s attack, the PSNI immediately began a painstaking murder inquiry. The House will understand that that meticulous work is still in the early stages. I saw the Chief Constable yesterday and I know that the PSNI, working closely with the Garda Siochana, will not rest until these evil people are brought to justice. I reiterate in the strongest terms the Chief Constable’s appeal for anyone with any information to bring it to the police.

The PSNI has support from right across the community and is responsible to locally elected politicians. Just over a year ago, we strongly supported the previous Government’s determination to devolve policing and justice, and we backed the very significant financial package that accompanied that devolution. After the election we endorsed proposals for a further £50 million for the PSNI, specifically to confront the terrorist threat. In the national security strategy, published last October, we made countering terrorist groups a tier 1 priority. We have agreed an exceptional £200 million of additional funding over four years, as requested by the Chief Constable, so that he can plan ahead with certainty.

As the Prime Minister said on Saturday,

“the British Government stands fully behind the Chief Constable and his officers as they work to protect Northern Ireland from terrorism”.

That cannot be done by a security response alone, crucial though that is. It can be resolved in the long term only by the community itself, together with strong leadership by local politicians. That leadership was evident again this morning when the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Justice Minister stood as one with the Chief Constable to reiterate their determination that these terrorists will never succeed. They all called for the active support of the PSNI. They spoke for the people of Northern Ireland, and their condemnation of this grotesque murder has been echoed in London, Dublin and Washington.

Our clear and united message to these terrorists is that they will not destabilise the power-sharing institutions at Stormont, they will not deter young Catholic men and women from joining the police service, and they will not drag Northern Ireland back to the past.

Thirteen years ago, the agreement was endorsed by overwhelming majorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That was the true democratic voice of the people of Ireland, north and south. They, above all, will ensure that the terrorists fail. The visit of Her Majesty the Queen will shortly reinforce the fact that relations within these islands have never been stronger.

Today, politics in Northern Ireland is stable. The democratic process is established. An Assembly has completed its first full term in decades. At the elections in May, voters will choose their politicians to serve in the new Assembly based on everyday bread-and-butter issues. That is democracy in action.

Those who murdered police Constable Ronan Kerr fear democracy. The Omagh bomb in 1998 did not destroy the peace process. The terrorists failed then and they will fail now. They will not deflect us from our shared determination to build a peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland for everyone.

In the powerful and moving words of Constable Kerr’s mother yesterday:

“We were so proud of Ronan and all that he stood for. Don’t let his death be in vain.”

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The House can only echo and underline the sincerity and unity with which the leaders of all Northern Ireland’s political parties—nationalist, republican and Unionist—have spoken. The Opposition are part of that single voice, which reverberated around the world this weekend.

We remember Constable Ronan Kerr with profound respect. Our hearts go out to his mother and family, and to the people of Omagh, for whom the brutal assassination reopens a deep wound. We think, too, of the police family of Northern Ireland, who today deeply mourn their colleague, but will be at work, the gravest risks to each no less, serving the community selflessly.

The men and women of the PSNI do not see themselves as extraordinary, but in what we ask of them, in the gravest risks that they daily face, we know them as extraordinary. In his courage and service, Ronan Kerr exemplified that spirit. His commitment to working for one community—Protestant and Catholic—stands in absolute juxtaposition to the deluded and demonic deeds of those who targeted him.

However futile their actions, those behind the psychotic acts of violence seek to bring fear and terror back to the streets of Northern Ireland. Constable Kerr was not an isolated target, nor was the attack random. His death is profoundly shocking, but an attack on a police officer is not a surprise.

When the Belfast agreement was signed, as the head of MI5 acknowledged last year, we all hoped that the residual threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland would remain low and gradually decline. Regrettably, optimism must give way to realism. The threat is not low: today it is severe. It is more serious today than in nearly 15 years and it is ongoing. A serious terrorist incident was attempted almost every week last year—a dramatic and regrettable escalation on previous years. Those people have improved capacity, increasingly sophisticated technical and engineering capability, and they aspire to extend their reach.

Today’s terrorists may have little or no community support, but we make a grave mistake if we do not recognise that, in addition to those who refused to accept the peace agenda, a new generation is growing up, delusionally embracing a new wave of criminal and deadly violence. Their numbers grow significantly. Bordering on psychotic, their ambition is to instil fear through attempted bombings and murders. Their aspirations extend beyond Northern Ireland to Britain.

Excepting national security, responsibility today for policing and justice is devolved to Stormont. However, devolution does not absolve us at Westminster of our broader responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State recently succeeded in persuading the Treasury to provide additional resources from the reserve. He is to be congratulated on that. That, of course, was before this attack.

If the Chief Constable should require—to fulfil the ongoing demands of community policing for the public and, of course, for the safety of his officers—further additional resources for overtime, forensics, vehicles and other items to meet the threat, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that they will be agreed and made available without delay?

To tackle today’s threat, we must ensure that we not only contain the existing terrorists, but do all we can to stop alienated young people being drawn into that pattern of crime. The Secretary of State will know of the work of Co-operation Ireland, which is urgently seeking additional financial support for its critical work from, among others, the British Government. He knows the former deputy Chief Constable, Peter Sheridan, who leads that work. The organisation has made cutting-edge proposals, tackling the sectarian legacy but also dealing with real problems in the present. Will the Secretary of State consider the proposals sympathetically and renew his support for additional funding with the Chancellor?

The Home Secretary raised the threat level in Great Britain last September. To ensure that we are guided not by optimism, but by realism, will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the Government will learn from not only the mistakes that we made in the past, but the security measures that we got right?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is satisfied from discussions with the Home Secretary that here in Britain police forces have and will continue to have the resources they need to address the threat appropriately? Will he also confirm that, at all levels of Government, there is no complacency? Prevention should be our guide.

On national security, and if we are to learn, as the head of MI5 said, from “the pattern of history”, will the Secretary of State tell the House that he is fully satisfied with the co-operation between the PSNI and forces here in Britain, including on timely and comprehensive sharing of information?

Without capability, the threat from terrorists will be significantly contained. Those who supply the criminals must also be brought to justice. Will the Secretary of State confirm that anyone involved today or in the past in the supply of weapons or explosives will not be given immunity from prosecution? Will he confirm that, should the PSNI wish to conduct interviews with any foreign nationals currently in Britain, the Government would immediately help facilitate that?

Hon. Members will have seen the statement that Constable Kerr’s mother made on television last night. Yesterday was mothering Sunday. When so many sons and daughters remembered what their mothers had given for them, Constable Kerr’s mother, in her darkest hours of grief, shared with our country what her precious son meant to her and her family. We all have a duty to ensure that Ronan’s death will not be in vain. Let us be judged on what we now do.

[Mr Paterson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and support, which send a strong signal across the world that the House is united on the issue.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned contingency. We have made it clear that, as under the arrangements that he fixed with the Executive at the time, should the threat increase, we are prepared to consider the reserve, but let us look at what we have done. We confirmed £50 million last year and got an exceptional £200-million programme agreed this year for the next four years. Today, the Chief Constable said:

“We have the resources, we have the resilience and we have the commitment.”

As I said in the statement, we are supportive of work with community groups, and I spoke to the chairman of Co-operation Ireland this morning. We will consider a range of alternatives because, as I made clear, there is not just a security solution.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made counter-terrorism a priority, and budgets are protected. I am absolutely confident that there is increasing and improved co-ordination between the PSNI and GB-based forces. She came to Belfast to discuss that with the Chief Constable a few months ago.

Finally, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that no immunity has been given to anyone. If he were present for the statement from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, he would have heard him say quite clearly that Musa Kusa is not being offered any immunity from British or international justice. He also said during his statement that we believe in the rule of law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shaun Woodward Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is good that it is not yet in the bag, because the Secretary of State will know that since 2000, 80 countries have cut corporation tax rates. I am sure that, among those, he has studied Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States which has an effective corporation tax rate for manufacturing of 2%. What assessment has he made of how that has helped tackle unemployment in that United States territory, and how it has helped those countries generally to recover from global recession?

[Mr Paterson]

I am most grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his question, but Puerto Rico is a bizarre comparison. I spent three and a half years travelling to Northern Ireland every week. Week after week I went to businesses, and week after week they said that a reduction in corporation tax would most help them.

[Mr Woodward]

It is clear that the Secretary of State travelled week after week, but it is also clear that he learnt nothing. Unemployment in Puerto Rico went up again last month, to 16%. The economy remains in recession for the fourth year. We need Northern Ireland to get out of recession, not to stay in it, so let us be clear—and a simple yes or no will do. Given the vital importance of infrastructure, education and skills to attracting and retaining business, will he guarantee that any consequential changes to the annual block grant and from tax revenue will not leave the Executive with an annual net loss? Yes or no?

[Mr Paterson]

We need no lectures on the economy from the right hon. Gentleman. He was in the bunker with the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and he left us with a bill of £280,000 a minute in borrowing and £120 million a day in interest costs. We are absolutely clear that, following the example of the Republic of Ireland, we will grow the revenue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shaun Woodward Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman played a key role in seeing those powers devolved. He will know that the administration of inquests is a devolved matter that is entirely in the hands of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. It would not be for us to interfere in the mechanics and financing of his Department, which are entirely down to the local Executive.

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

Given the commitments by the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park, and the commitment by those Governments to an inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane, does the Secretary of State recognise that it would be unwise for the British Government to act unilaterally?

[Mr Paterson]

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is not an easy case, as he had three years to resolve the matter, as the real Secretary of State. He effectively ended up with a Mexican stand-off, where the family wanted one thing and he wanted them to have an inquiry, as I understand it, under the Inquiries Act 2005. He knows that this is not an easy matter to resolve, and that is why I had a helpful meeting with Mrs Finucane and her son. I laid out the process that we intend to follow in my written ministerial statement of 11 November.

[Mr Woodward]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have also met with Geraldine Finucane. I pay tribute to the way in which she has conducted herself, as I know he has too. However, notwithstanding his remarks about future inquiries, now that he is the real Secretary of State—as he described it—is he beginning to understand the damage that could be done to community support for the devolved institutions and to the British Government if he were to renege on existing undertakings, made by a previous Government and supported by his party in opposition, to independently investigate the past?

Oral Answers to Questions

Shaun Woodward Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.

Bloody Sunday Inquiry (Report)

Shaun Woodward Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

First, I pay tribute to the men and women who were killed on 30 January 1972. While honouring them, I also want to pay tribute to those who were injured and, indeed, to all the families whose lives have been so painfully damaged by the events of Bloody Sunday. Few of us can ever begin to know the pain that they have endured, but on 15 June this year, we could all see from the relief and celebration on the streets of Derry the powerful impact of Lord Saville’s inquiry, as the reputations of those whose lives were lost and those who were injured were fully exonerated.

When the Prime Minister gave his unreserved apology, he truly spoke for us all. For nearly four decades, despite enormous resistance from some, those brave families have waged their campaign for justice. Their conduct and their dignity have been exemplary, both before and since publication of the inquiry. The inquiry stands in stark contrast to the travesty of truth in the Widgery report. The Saville report did what it was intended to do—it established the truth.

There are many lessons to be learned from Bloody Sunday, and many lessons for those who for too long clung to the Widgery report as truth revealed and justice served—for truth Widgery was not and, in the name of justice, Widgery gave none. For a generation to come, the inquiry that Lord Widgery was asked to conduct will be synonymous with whitewashing the truth—for, at best, its wholly inadequate terms of reference and for being conducted too quickly. Perhaps more damningly, is the greater indictment of all those who preferred to continue to cling ever more desperately to the wreckage of Lord Widgery’s findings. They did so when the evidence increasingly suggested that his report was fundamentally flawed and misleading, and when its conclusions were increasingly shown to be unsafe and wrong.

The House owes a debt to all those who campaigned for the truth to be established, and I pay tribute to those in the then British Government, and the Irish and American Governments, who would not settle for what increasingly looked like a whitewash, and to all those who never gave up and who campaigned for new evidence to be considered.

Over the past few months great praise has rightly been given to the work and honesty of Lord Saville’s inquiry. There was nothing inevitable about the inquiry. A few short years ago, in 1998, establishing such an inquiry was a bold and courageous step. Without that step, it would have been so much harder to have established the bona fides for a peace process to succeed. In the 5,000 pages of his report, Lord Saville has finally established the truth. Yes, there are undoubtedly rightful questions to be asked about the time taken to produce the report and indeed, at £200 million, its cost, but let those of us entrusted with authority never confuse the price of truth with the value of truth. What we learn from the inquiry is shocking truth.

[Mr Dodds]

On the issue of costs, the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State in charge of the Northern Ireland Office for part of the time when these costs were run up, as they were under his predecessors. Does he take any responsibility for the overrun of time and costs? Does he believe that the NIO could have done more to curtail costs and make the inquiry more efficient in terms of time, or does he believe that nothing could have been done?

[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.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman as he did not speak in the debate and I must make progress.

The right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston and the hon. Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised the issue of prosecutions. I remind them that prosecutions are not a matter for government. It is for the independent prosecution authorities to consider such issues. It would be completely inappropriate for the Government to intervene by pressurising the prosecution service to provide a deadline. That would clearly compromise the independence of the process.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the lessons learned by the Army. As the Chief of the Defence Staff said in the light of Lord Saville’s report, the way the Army is trained, the way it works and the way it operates have all changed significantly, and we should not forget that during the 38 years of Operation Banner in Northern Ireland the majority of the military who took part in that operation, often on several tours, did so with professionalism and restraint.

In response to comments by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Foyle, I can confirm that, having considered the views expressed in this debate and the debate in the other place, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence will shortly write to the Prime Minister on issues arising from the report. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

The right hon. Members for St Helens South and Whiston and for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West raised the issue of dealing with the past. This Government promptly published the summary of responses to the Eames-Bradley report in July this year—if I may say so, that was perhaps in contrast to the previous Secretary of State, who now criticises us for inaction despite sitting on the responses for many months prior to the general election. I wish to put on the record my thanks to the noble and right reverend Lord Eames, to Denis Bradley and to the other members of the group.

[Mr Woodward]

Just for the record, I would advise the Minister to look a little more closely at the reasons why we did not publish the responses to the public consultation. We did not do so precisely because it was more sensible to await the publication of Lord Saville’s report, as it would then be possible to make a sensible decision on how to proceed when one can hold the two together. If the Minister pleads for bipartisan support, he should avoid cheap political point scoring in this debate.

[Mr Swire]

The shadow Secretary of State is at least consistent in so much as he received the responses back in October 2009. I was perhaps trying to draw attention to the rapid progress we have made on many fronts since taking office, given that we were accused earlier in the debate of stalling on so many of these issues.

The Eames-Bradley report was a significant piece of work that has made an important contribution to the debate on dealing with the past. The responses to the report we published did, however, show the current lack of consensus on any wider process. But we have continued to listen to the views of victims and organisations from across the community to find a way forward. There is no question of the Government attempting to close down the past. We will continue to be measured and sensitive in our approach. As we continue to engage on the potential for wider mechanisms, we should also acknowledge the ongoing work to address the legacy of the past. I pay tribute in particular to the work of the Historical Enquiries Team, which has achieved very high satisfaction rates among families who have received reports. I say to the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston and to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that it is not for the Government to alter the HET’s remit.

The right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston and the right hon. Member for Torfaen, himself a distinguished former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, raised the Finucane case. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting the Finucane family very shortly, and it is right that we talk to the family in the first instance, before commenting publicly.

A number of hon. Members made important points about the distinguished service of the vast majority of soldiers who served in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friends the Members for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), in a particularly passionate and moving speech, made their personal experiences come to life. They described the difficult and often frightening circumstances in which we asked our young soldiers—some very young—to serve, sometimes woefully underprepared, in Northern Ireland during the troubles. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), in a very good speech, was right to remind us of the tragic murders by terrorists of two Members of this House, Airey Neave and Ian Gow.

The Government are clear that Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the Army’s service in Northern Ireland. We should not forget, and we will never forget, that more than 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives, and many thousands more were injured, in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. I recently met a number of ex-servicemen and heard for myself their continuing trauma and suffering. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening statement and as was reiterated by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), we owe an immense debt of gratitude to all those who served in the security forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the importance of bringing closure to the families of those killed by terrorists. The HET is investigating all 3,268 cases from the troubles, including the deaths of police officers and soldiers killed by terrorists. The Government strongly support the HET’s important work and the vital work of community and victims’ groups in providing help and support to the victims of the troubles.

A number of hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the distinguished Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, on which I once had the honour to serve, and perhaps coincidentally, other members of his Committee, were critical of the cost of the report. Of course, as we heard this afternoon, no one could have anticipated that the inquiry would take 12 years or cost more than £191 million. Our views on that are by now well known and well documented.

The Government have been clear that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries, but on taking office we separated our views on the process from the substance of the report’s findings. It was right that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took responsibility, on behalf of the Government, in responding to Lord Saville’s clear and shocking findings.

The hon. Member for South Down mentioned public inquiries. The Government have been clear, as I said, that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries. This is not an issue solely about public finances. Selecting a small number of legacy cases to be the subject of public inquiries creates an uneven process that cannot adequately address the legacy of a conflict that resulted in more than 3,500 deaths.

With reference to the report, the state must always be determined to hold itself to account. We should never judge ourselves by the same standards as terrorists. The Government are clear that we do not uphold the honour of all those who served with such bravery and professionalism in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth or by defending the indefensible.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) spoke about the context of the events of Bloody Sunday. I was slightly perplexed by this point. I should point out to him that Lord Saville covers the events leading up to Bloody Sunday in great detail in volume 1 of the report. I recommend reading those chapters, if right hon. and hon. Members are not tempted to read the rest, because they provide the clearest insight to the events in Northern Ireland surrounding internment and the events on Bloody Sunday. That was well précised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips).

The hon. Members for East Londonderry, for Strangford and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) raised the conclusions relating to Martin McGuinness. It is for Mr McGuinness to answer questions about the findings relating to him. The report is clear in its conclusions about him. It specifically finds that he was present and probably armed with a

“sub-machine gun”,

but states that

“we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire.”

The Government are clear that there was never any justification for the brutal campaigns waged by terrorists. As the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston and my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said, there is no justification, nor can there be, for the actions of residual terrorist groups trying to drag Northern Ireland back to the past.

The hon. Members for South Down and for Strangford were among those who mentioned Ballymurphy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met the Ballymurphy families last month. Their stories were powerful and moving, and we both expressed our sympathy for their loss. We continue to encourage the families to co-operate with the ongoing HET investigation into the case. The HET is completely independent of the Government. I understand that the families recently made representations to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland on the re-opening of inquests.

The hon. Member for Foyle made a typically powerful, solemn and heartfelt speech in which he paid solemn tribute to those who were killed and injured on Bloody Sunday. I thank him again for his comments on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s statement and pay tribute to him for the support and encouragement that he has provided to the families over the years as a hard-working constituency MP.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to point out the shocking conclusions in the report. Lord Saville’s report speaks for itself. In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the victims, let me reiterate what Lord Saville concluded. He said 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.”

The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the removal of an honour given to Lieutenant Colonel Wilford. That would be a matter for the Ministry of Defence in the first instance and ultimately for the honours forfeiture committee, but I understand that honours are not normally rescinded unless the person concerned has been sentenced to imprisonment after conviction in a criminal court or formally censured by a regulatory body.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of compensation. I know that there are a range of different views among victims of the troubles about financial payments. I understand that the victims commissioners are conducting a wide examination of victims’ needs and how best to address them, including the issue of compensation.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised the role of the Irish Government. The actions of the Irish Government are of course a matter for them, but I would draw hon. Members’ attention to the Taoiseach’s commitment to contribute to a reconciliation process. I welcome that commitment, as I do the very close relationship that we have with the Government in Dublin.