Standing Committee B
Tuesday 20 January 1998
(Afternoon)
[Part II]
[Mr. John Butterfill in the Chair]
[Continuation from column 146]
8.30 pm
On resuming
Mr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. As an ex-shipyard worker, I am slightly deaf. I can hear your voice, Mr. Butterfill, but I should like to make a plea through your good offices for members of the Committee to speak up so that shipyard workers such as myself can hear what they are saying.
The Chairman: I have already requested that from hon. Members. The acoustics in the Room are particularly poor at the moment so speaking up would help some members of the Committee to hear the debate as well as assist Hansard staff to make an accurate record of our proceedings.
Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 6, at end insert
"and publish such terms and conditions, including the nature of such assistance and any sums paid or granted".
The Chairman: With this we may take amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 7, at end add
"and publish the names, political and religious affiliation and the nationality of the researcher or researchers".
Mr. Ross: We return to the same general issue that was addressed in earlier amendments whether the affiliations of individuals who will be paid under the Bill should be made known to the general public. Clause 2(3)(a) states that
"the Commission may ... commission research",
and the amendments would add to that provision. At a time when we seem to be moving towards European unity, that could be considered unnecessary or wrong. I have heard it said that some of the best defences of the Unionist position in Northern Ireland have been published not by Unionists but by people outwith these islands.
The general public of Northern Ireland may hear, however, that the commission has decided to carry out some research and intends to grant considerable sums to researchers, but only one side or the other or perhaps nobody will agree with it. Then people will say, "Who did this work? Who carried out the research? Where are the questionnaries? What inquiries were made aboutwhom? What was the purpose of seeking the information and of drawing conclusions on its basis?".
The Government must understand our concerns. We want to ascertain whether the Government agree with us on open government and transparency in research. Do they accept our views on appropriate qualifications? Will they publish the names, addresses and the political and religious affiliations of the individuals involved? As far as we can see from the Bill's wording, they are not prepared to publish that information.
What assistance will the Government provide to those who they employ on the commission? Will they offer them advice and will they be prepared to set out the general framework in which research will be conducted? What is the purpose of the research? What is the commission trying to ascertain? In other words, what information will the commission give to the Government an what information is it seeking?
Researchers may come to Government sources, the police and the commission and say that they would like to take a careful look at the advice that was given in the past. Not only may they want to see the general advice and evidence that was published, but they may want to see the detail. That would involve written evidence and transcripts of oral evidence. They may also want the names and addresses of those involved. Would the commission provide such helpful information?
If the commission provides such information, we must consider the security input. We discussed that last Thursday when the issue of security information was raised. Some of the information on individuals is very sensitive and may include details on the whereabouts of persons who might decide to cause trouble, such as fomenting riot, arson, petrol bombing, stone throwing and murder. All those acts have occurred in Northern Ireland in recent years and days.
The police, especially those who work under cover, operate in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. That was demonstrated by an incident last week when an undercover operation in Belfast went clearly and wildly wrong. A woman soldier was so surprised by other security forces that she shot and severely wounded a policeman. No one regrets such incidents more than me, but I refer to it because it demonstrates that the work of gathering intelligence can be dangerous and fraught with perils from every source.
The information that is gathered at great cost might be required by a researcher. Are the Government, the police or the commission prepared to give it to him? If so, under what conditions will it be provided? Will the research be published? If not, why not? Will semi-secret work be carried out and a report be published setting out the conclusions that have been reached? If so, people would ask, "What led you to these conclusions? Where is the evidence for them?".
I am sure that many hon. Members have read the Widgery report recently. They will wonder about the evidence presented in it. When hon. Members consider the findings of opinion polls I am sure that they consider whether the questions were weighted to obtain a particular answer. This is a sensitive and dangerous matter and the evidence given by the security forces should also be published. The public should be aware that there is a grave security risk if a certain procession[Mr. Ross]
goes ahead or is stopped, for that matter. They should know that no good ever comes from concealing from the public and the nation the nature of the threats that people face in Northern Ireland. If the Government think that there are good reasons, we should be told, because knowledge is essential to enable people to come to sensible decisions, not least in Northern Ireland.
I am convinced that one reason why sensible decisions have not been taken in the past is because so many of our fellow citizens are not clearly aware of circumstances in Northern Ireland. Few people in the United Kingdom really knew what the Maze was like until they saw it on their television screens a few weeks ago, and were horrified by those pictures.
It is not only the matter of the security input; there is also the question whether the investigators will be granted access to the civil servants who advise the Minister and the Secretary of State. Civil servants have their own views of the situation. As the Minister said, they come to him with valuable and detailed advice which enables him to make up his mind. They provide another series of comments, views and information that the investigators should have and which should be made available to the public when the research methods and results are published, because it is a valuable source. When all the facts have been gathered together and presented to the Secretary of State, she can come to a firm conclusion.
It is not only access to civil servants that matters. An individual or a body will be selected to carry out research into whether any changes are necessary and to make detailed inquiries into what is going on. Will there be access to Ministers? Will the researchers be able to ring Stormont castle and ask the Secretary of State, "Can we come and talk to you?". Will they be able to tell her that it is essential that she grants them an audience because they want to ask her questions to enable them to formulate a policy that will bring peace and tranquillity to Northern Ireland. Will their request be granted? If not, we need to be told why.
The matter of access to the commission will arise. It will have taken decisions some, as Ministers have told us, may be inaccurate and wrong and lead to unforeseen and possibly unfortunate consequences. On the other hand, some of the decisions taken by the commission may lead to sweetness and light and agreement across the board, which will ensure that the spectre of violence disappears from our streets forever. In such circumstances, people would be very interested to know exactly how the commission came to those correct decisions, because they could perhaps be applied more widely.
We must consider the matter of access to the various individuals affected by the legislation the parading organisations and protesting organisations, for example. The attitude of prisoners who feel that the length of their stay as guests of Her Majesty was affected by decisions taken outside must be considered. Will access be granted to all those people? How will the researchers be given funding to make inquiries?
8.45 pm
The second issue arising from amendment No. 11 concerns the nature of any assistance. I have already mentioned the assistance that any researcher worth his salt would seek in an effort to reach a sensible conclusion. However, beyond that is the question of the real cost.
What sums would be available for the work, to be granted to the body or person involved? We need to know the length of time to be allocated, and all the detail, to set the minds of the people of Northern Ireland at rest on the matter.
We need also to consider the questions raised by amendment No. 12, which would establish a means for inquiring about the identity of the researchers. The people who would examine the research material would want to know the names and addresses of the researchers and the position that they held; whether they were individuals or tied to a university; whether they were part of a think tank or simply had a particular interest in the subject, as post-graduate students of social or political matters.
Finally, the question of religious affiliation would rear its ugly head. The question would be asked: "If these people or this group are to carry out the research, what is their political background? Where were they educated? What primary and secondary schools and university did they attend? What church do they attend?". The researchers' nationality would also become a matter of interest. Most people in Northern Ireleand would look askance if they discovered that citizens of the Irish Republic were carrying out research on the issue of parades. No matter how eminent the researcher, his or her claim to be fair, reasonable and unbiased would fall into question. Even if those qualities were present, the process would come up against the second great roadblock people's perceptions of the person concerned.
I have raised questions in the present context that have been raised before. If the Government are intent on ensuring the acceptance of the information collected as valid, fair and reasoned, they should accept the amendments. Those simple provisions would commend themselves to anyone intent on maintaining people's support for the Bill.
| 
