UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 914-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Wednesday 2 July 2008

RH HON SHAUN WOODWARD MP, MR NICK PERRY and MS HILARY JACKSON

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 38

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

on Wednesday 2 July 2008

Members present

Sir Patrick Cormack, in the Chair

Mr David Anderson

Christopher Fraser

Mr John Grogan

Kate Hoey

Stephen Pound

Sammy Wilson

________________

Witnesses: Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr Nick Perry, Senior Director, Policing and Security, and Ms Hilary Jackson, Political Director, Northern Ireland Office, gave evidence.

Q1 Chairman: Secretary of State, could I welcome you most warmly, and Hilary Jackson and Nick Perry, both of whom are well known to our Committee. We are delighted to see all three of you. Thank you for coming. We are slightly depleted this afternoon. Two of our Committee, Mr Campbell and Lady Hermon, have got relatives who have been taken into hospital and that is the reason for their absence. Maybe, as we have not seen you officially since January, we could begin with a general overview. Is there anything you yourself would like to say by way of introduction?

Mr Woodward: First of all, thank you very much, Chairman, for welcoming us to the Committee this afternoon. It is a pleasure, of course, to be here. Please extend my sympathies to those members of the Committee who are not able to be here for the reasons you gave. I think the last six months, Chairman, have been a pretty extraordinary and positive six months in Northern Ireland. Members of this Committee will have shared, I think, everyone's anticipation and optimism, but also I think a general concern about how the first year of devolution would actually work out. I think we can report that despite the shocks delivered to the system - I am thinking particularly of the murder of Paul Quinn in the autumn of last year and the shock registration of the First Minister three months ago - actually the Executive has more than come through that. Of course it has been difficult, but the truth is that I think most of us thought it would be a great deal more difficult at the beginning than it was and I think what has been encouraging has been that when under, at times, considerable tension and stress - I am not for a moment trying to mask that, but I am recognising that at points of stress historically we might have expected people to walk away from each other, but when tested what we actually found was that in the end they walked towards each other. That does not mean to say that it was an easy act of reconciliation or that people easily achieved positions in which they readily understood the other person's point of view, but what they demonstrated was the power of dialogue, and the power of dialogue I think has been considerable. I think it would be naïve to have imagined that centuries of division and certainly 30 or 40 years of the Troubles could simply evaporate because of, albeit remarkable agreements, the Belfast Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement, and that somehow magically it could have just disappeared because people agreed to share power. So I think the first point to make is that this has been a remarkable year. The second point to make is that despite the problems in terms of global economic downturn I think it is particularly signal that very substantial amounts of money are being committed by foreign direct investment, particularly from the United States, and again a tribute to the power-sharing executive and Invest NI for the work they have done in this, but the visit of the President of the United States a few weeks ago should be seen in the context of the work which the Bush administration has done with the Executive to help bring that investment to Northern Ireland, which means hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, hundreds (if not indeed thousands) of jobs at a time when elsewhere in the Western world we are concerned about things turning down. So a huge vote of confidence, but I think it might be worth just remarking to the Committee that the President, both in private and in public, was quite explicit about something I have shared with this Committee in the past, that actually the investment could only continue if there was stability and that, in his view, that investment which he has sought and asked for, and led, brought, and will bring to Northern Ireland depends upon the parties completing devolution as the best signal for stability. He was very clear about that both privately and publicly.

Q2 Chairman: We will come on to that in a minute, if we may, but thank you for those opening remarks. If in a sentence you had to describe the current political situation in Northern Ireland how would you concisely and accurately seek to sum it up?

Mr Woodward: I think it is robust.

Q3 Chairman: What would you say were the most significant developments since you last appeared formally before the Committee at the very beginning of this year?

Mr Woodward: I think so many of these things in Northern Ireland have to be seen symbolically. For example, the visit of Her Majesty the Queen and the significance of being able to go to Armagh and do the Maundy Thursday service in Armagh, and as the Queen's car drove through the streets of Armagh to the Cathedral men and women (some of them waving Union flags, some of them waving the flags of the Republic) stood side by side happily cheering, smiling, requiring no intervention from anybody to let people simply express their feelings of pleasure at seeing the Queen, being able to stand side by side but waving very different flags, and presumably with very different sentiments about the future and what, perhaps, long-term they might like to vote for, that this was a very, very different Northern Ireland from the one we all knew when we were younger. That does not mean to say that there is any loss of strength of the positions of the individual traditions. It means that people are learning to respect and live with each other in peace and not by acts of violence. I therefore would say that symbolically I think that was hugely significant. I think the passage from Dr Paisley to Mr Robinson was hugely significant, that actually it was possible to do it, albeit with a little bit of tension but nonetheless it was possible to do it and actually come through it peacefully, and for Mr Robinson to set about a process of addressing what he regarded, and what Martin McGuiness regarded as the urgent issues which needed to be addressed. Again, it was unrealistic to think they could be addressed overnight, but I think again it is a mark of the success of the institution that it is able to do that.

Q4 Chairman: Thank you. One of the most important appointments, many people would say, over the last year was the appointment of Eames and Bradley. How confident are you that their group - with whom we have met, I must point out - will be able to articulate proposals which are likely to find favour across the communities in Northern Ireland?

Mr Woodward: It is a very difficult task to find a consensus on how to deal with the past - a past which has brought about nearly 4,000 deaths, tens of thousands of people injured, a past which represents several hundred years of alienation, institutionalised injustices which have included acts of appalling terrorism and violence - in which Catholics have not only felt but quite justifiably felt excluded. Yet in all of that there have been huge strides by communities on both sides to address that balance. In the course of all of that, huge grievances are felt by both sides, justifiably, and what we are asking Eames and Bradley to do is to see whether or not a consensus can be found on how to deal with that past. Now, that past is for some just a few years old, for some it is 10, 20, 30 years old. For some it is a lot longer than that. What we are asking them to do, therefore, is a monumental task and the first point of call, I think, is to see whether or not people even want to find a way of dealing with the past which is not about being held in the grip of the past. So the first thing I say to you, Chairman, is that if they can even come back and say, "Everybody wants to deal with the past in a different way from inquiries," for example, that would be an enormous step forward. If they can go further than that, if they are able to find a consensus between people about what in the past could be dealt with differently, that would be remarkable. As you know, they put out in their interim speech some of their thoughts. We know from a public meeting they had at the beginning of the year, since we last met, where somebody suggested the idea that an amnesty might be floated, many people, very, very understandably, felt very, very concerned about that. So we know the levels of feeling run very, very high, and I understand that and respect that deeply on both sides of the community. So I do not underestimate the huge task they have been given. I do not underestimate the importance of them being seen to be independent from any particular institution or government, because that is the only way in which they could even remotely begin to be effective, and I do not underestimate the significance that even if they came back and said the only thing they can find is that everybody is agreed that the past needs to be dealt with differently from them being held in its grip, that in itself should be recognised as a huge achievement. Further than that would be a bonus.

Q5 Chairman: As you probably know, we are about to publish a report which touches on some of these things and we hope that our comments and suggestions will be helpful, although we are careful and have been careful not to anticipate or in any way seek to pressurise the Eames and Bradley group, but we would welcome, obviously, your reactions to what we say when we publish next Monday. I would just like to move on now to devolution and then hand over, after I have asked one initial question, to Sammy Wilson. You said last week on the floor of the House that you attach high importance to the devolution of criminal justice and policing. You made that point again this afternoon. Many people, of course, would say that although they can entirely subscribe to that general view and ambition, stability and devolution are not absolutely dependent one upon the other, that you can have stability without devolution. But you mentioned the President and his requirements. How do you see things moving forward from now? Do you anticipate devolution occurring this calendar year, or within twelve months of now? How do you see it?

Mr Woodward: The first thing I would say to you, Chairman, is that I do not think there is really any likelihood that you could have long-term stability without completing devolution. I think the idea of some a la carte menu is entirely unrealistic and I think substantial numbers of people in the Catholic community would feel they have been short-changed. That is very different from saying any political party or any political movement. I make the distinction of those in the community who are unaffiliated but who I think would feel short-changed and would feel very strongly if that were not to happen. I think the political arguments put forward by those who represent that part of the community are also equally strong, and I think it was significant in the speech which Peter Robinson made earlier this week that he recognised the responsibility to actually complete devolution, whilst absolutely at the same time recognising the need to do so in such a way that people felt confident about the future in which they would find themselves when that devolution of policing and justice has been completed. I think it was an extremely wise speech because I think it paved the way for completing devolution whilst at the same time rightly recognising the issues which still need to be worked through between the parties, which I think answers the second part of your question as to when. I would like to see, and indeed I share the view of the Chief Constable that there is no practical reason why we could not devolve now. I believe actually it is the right time now to devolve, because this is not a science, there will never be an exact moment, but this will require leadership. If we look back on the whole of the last ten, twelve years in Northern Ireland, none of this has happened by science, it has happened because of leadership, and the leadership which has been shown by the politicians in response to their communities. Of course, rarely has this been an act of followship by these political leaders, it has been leadership, but it has been leadership which has reflected the will of the people. I believe that even if for some Unionists this is difficult, the leadership which needs to be shown here is in the same spirit and line of the leadership we have seen within Unionism ever since 1997. So I hope that the leaders will rise to this challenge. I hope it will happen sooner rather than later. We are ready to transfer as soon as the Assembly in a cross-party way, as laid out in the legislation, requests.

Q6 Chairman: But you are being careful not to put too much pressure?

Mr Woodward: Momentum, yes; pressure, no.

Sammy Wilson: Chairman, listening to the Secretary of State and observing some of his actions recently, I am appalled at how insensitive, first of all, he is to the situation in Northern Ireland, and indeed how oblivious he is to how his actions, his words, are actually provoking, I believe, the very kind of instability he says we cannot afford to have. I just want to take up a couple of points. I will come back to policing and justice. The first thing is that he has talked about how we have progressed with all of the difficulties there are. We have seen over the last couple of weeks interference by the Secretary of State in devolution and devolved matters in Northern Ireland that would not be tolerated, quite frankly, had the same interference been applied to Scotland.

Chairman: Would you like to be specific?

Sammy Wilson: Yes, I will. Let me just take the example of the £6 million which was added to the Northern Ireland block which was meant to be paid to Northern Ireland to screen Irish language films, money added to the Northern Ireland block which of course should then be spent and decided by the devolved administration in Northern Ireland, and yet we have the unprecedented situation where the money is given to the Northern Ireland block and then spent and allocated by ministers here in the Westminster Government, interference which I suggest to you, Secretary of State, would never be accepted and never even be attempted in Scotland. Or, indeed, the way in which you yourself, totally unprovoked, at questions here in the Northern Ireland questions last week, deigned not just to comment on but to almost dictate how the situation about the national stadium should be decided, even though that again is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland administration. I would just like to know, if devolution is working so well then why do you, as Secretary of State, feel that you have got to make so many interventions, and one sided interventions? That is the point which I think angers people.

Q7 Chairman: Let the Secretary of State answer those various points.

Mr Woodward: Let me deal with the issue about the Maze first of all. Mr Wilson has an interesting set of observations. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the opinions. I will just comment on the facts. The reason I made reference to the Maze was because I had been asked questions about military sites. It is difficult, if you are asked a question about military sites, not to actually respond by talking about the sites which had been gifted. With huge respect, Mr Wilson, if I am actually asked a question, I am actually permitted to give the answer to the question. You may not have liked the answers, but unfortunately I cannot comment on your taste as to my answers. What I can say to you is that we are being constantly pressed by your administration to gift more sites. I seem to recollect a number of questions from your own party, from Sinn Féin. Indeed, I have had conversations and an exchange of letters with Sir Patrick as well about the sites in Omagh, as one example. But the fact of the matter is that for these sites to be gifted - and, as you know, there is ambiguity in the 2003 declaration, again which you and your colleagues have continually pressed me on, so once again one of the reasons I am giving you the answers is because you have asked me the questions. I apologise if you do not like the answers, but I have to tell you, if you ask me a question I will give you the answer. So the reason I raised it in the House and had the temerity, as you might be suggesting, to answer the question is because the fact of the matter is the Maze is relevant here, because if we were to look at future giftings of the site we have to make sure that if we are to take money away from another government department, in this case the Ministry of Defence, (a) that the compensation which would effectively arise for the MoD can be found from other sources of money, and (b) that the sites are properly used. The fact of the matter is that of the original sites which were gifted, the Maze is still an article of contention. That is why we commented on it, because, not surprisingly, when you go to the Treasury to talk about prospective sites in the future they refer to the fact of how the existing sites are being used. So I apologise if you do not like the answer, but if you ask me the question about the issue it is likely you are going to get an answer about the same issue.

Q8 Sammy Wilson: With respect, Secretary of State, the answer you gave was not about the development of the site but specifically about what you wished to see on the site, and that is not a matter for you, that is a matter for the devolved administration in Northern Ireland. Your answer was much more specific than that.

Mr Woodward: With huge respect, the Executive had come to us to ask us for other sites. In so doing, they have talked about what they wanted to do with those sites. Indeed, they have taken, I think quite rightly, the right decision to want me to go and look at what might happen on those sites. Again, I did not solicit it, I was asked to do it. I apologise if you disagree with some of the invitations issued by your fellow colleagues in the DUP, but the fact of the matter is that the invitations have been issued and we have been asked for our opinions. I apologise if you do not like the fact that I have been asked, Mr Wilson, but I think it is incumbent upon me to give an answer.

Kate Hoey: Chairman, let us not go down the Maze, because if we are going to go down the Maze I have got a lot to say, because I blame this Government for the way the whole Maze project has got out of hand because it was a politically led project from the beginning and not about sport, and this Committee has actually made its views clear on the Maze some time ago and I hope that that will move on. I do not think we should get into this.

Chairman: It is really for me to say that, but I do agree with you and this Committee did make its views known on the Maze. I think we have your answer to Mr Wilson clearly on the record and we may or may not wish to look at the Maze again at some stage in the future, but it is now very much a devolved issue. This Committee made its unanimous view on what would be the appropriate use for the Maze, so now let us move on. What is your next question, Mr Wilson?

Sammy Wilson: Chairman, I also think that the Secretary of State does owe us an explanation as to how he has now made decisions as to how the Northern Ireland block grant is spent when that is a devolved issue and one in which again both the interventions, of course, have been designed to placate one particular side of the log-jam in some of the -

Chairman: Mr Wilson, this is an opportunity for you to ask questions rather than to make statements.

Q9 Sammy Wilson: I have asked the question and perhaps the Secretary of State would explain under what powers he believes he can not only decide what the money is to be used for when it goes to the Northern Ireland block grant, even though it is a devolved issue, but then allocate it to specific projects?

Mr Woodward: Chairman, let me just make a few points. One is a position of factual accuracy, and again far be it from me to wish to correct Mr Wilson, but of course the £6 million, which has been allocated to exactly the same formula which has been used for Wales, is of course not in addition to the block grant, as I am sure Mr Wilson, if he actually studies the facts, will quickly understand. It is, of course, also a continuation of a fund which runs out in 2009 for the making of broadcasting programmes, exactly the same as applies in Wales, indeed with a very, very similar process allowing that money to be made available. It would be interesting to note whether or not what I am being asked, Chairman, this afternoon is that as and when issues arise over the next two to three years, because of an agreement which has been made on the block grant there should therefore be, and Mr Wilson himself would guarantee that he would make no future calls on the Government here to assist with issues as they arise, whether it might be, for example, about compensation for Orange halls, which I seem to remember when we made it actually attracted quite a lot of interest from a number of people in the community who felt that it disproportionately favoured one part of the community rather than another. I regarded it as a matter of fairness, quite rightly, that I actually did that. Of course that was money which was made available after the settlement was announced, but I thought it was the right thing to do. The Prime Minister felt that when the money expired for the making of programmes in the Irish language (as indeed I have said happens in Wales), it would be right for the money to be made available (not on the block grant, in addition) to Northern Ireland for that to happen. Of course, it is entirely open to anybody in the community to make programmes in the Irish language. It is not restricted to any particular individual. I just say to Mr Wilson that I think as a general matter of principle it would be interesting to know whether he is saying that what is being put forward this afternoon is that there will be no calls on central government for any additional monies whatsoever in the months and years to come, because I suspect he would not want to be held to that.

Chairman: I think the Environment Minister had better be a bit careful on that.

Q10 Sammy Wilson: Of course, and I think the Secretary of State is being deliberately obtuse on this particular one because he knows that it is up to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to decide how that money is allocated. The difference was that it was allocated. Of course there will be calls, all the devolved administrations will make calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time, but at least when the money is allocated it should then be up to the relevant devolved department as to how the money is spent, not to have it directed by ministers who do not have the responsibility for that.

Mr Woodward: I think on this, Chairman, we will have to agree to disagree, but I take note of the fact that it is one of the first times I have ever heard an administration actually saying they did not want money and did not actually want -

Sammy Wilson: We want to decide how to spend it ourselves.

Chairman: We shall all look forward to Mr Wilson's film in the Irish language on Unionism and we will now, at that point, move across to Mr Grogan.

Kate Hoey: Chairman, we are still on devolution and policing and justice, are we, because I have not actually had an answer to any questions on that yet?

Chairman: Very quickly, then Mr Grogan.

Q11 Kate Hoey: What I am trying to get to the bottom of is - because clearly it is your wish and the Government's wish to get devolution as quickly as possible and you would like it today, as you have said, and you think the scenario is there for it to be ready today - can you just tell us in very simple language what is it that is not happening in Northern Ireland now because the devolution of justice and the other bits are not there that would be happening if it was? As far as my pocketful of Joe Bloggses sitting down in the middle of Armagh or wherever are concerned, what is making any difference to them on the ground in terms of what they look to the police and the justice system for? How is it making any difference to their lives whether it is being devolved or being run as it is at the moment?

Mr Woodward: I can quite see how you can argue that from the point of view, as you say, of Joe Bloggs in South Armagh -

Kate Hoey: Or County Antrim.

Q12 Chairman: That is Joe Cahill you are concerned about?

Mr Woodward: I would be very cautious about the names I use. From their point of view, no. What they want is stability. What they want are jobs. What they want is that when a crime happens the police come. So what that means is that there has to be confidence in the community and confidence in the community, as you know, is everybody in the community. It is extremely important across the board in Northern Ireland that people have confidence in the policing. I think we have seen huge steps forward by the Catholic community in the last few years. We have seen huge changes taking place in policing and confidence being there.

Q13 Kate Hoey: Can I just correct you on that, because you used the terminology earlier on? Do you not need to be quite careful when you use the word "Catholic community" because there are many Catholic communities, people who have always supported the police and who are very pro-Union? I think you should use "nationalist community" perhaps?

Mr Woodward: I will accept the advice and I will not labour a response to it, but I think it would be perverse in the extreme to suggest that I was even remotely putting forward the idea that the majority of Catholics have not always accepted the importance of policing and, as I say, I think it would be perverse to suggest that I have ever meant anything otherwise. But you asked me how people feel about it and what I am saying to you is that I think it would also be perverse not to recognise there are large parts of Northern Ireland that have not had that confidence in policing in the past. I think if you went back 30 or 40 years you would see that on an enormous scale, and I think it would be unwise to ignore that. I do not think you are suggesting that either, but I think in the last year we have seen huge steps forward and I think Sinn Féin is embracing the policing board. Not before time, of course not before time, but I think one should recognise the achievement that comes in there and I think one should recognise the importance of their taking part in DPPs. But I think there is a logical conclusion to all this, which is that if people can have responsibility for health and for education in Northern Ireland - which, after all, are issues which really matter to people in Northern Ireland - then local politicians should have responsibility for policing and law and order as well. In so many words the First Minister said that on Monday. I think he is right and I think it is artificial to hold back this, therefore, unless there is a very good reason. I think that is the question - it is difficult for some people to accept - that is being asked by those who are now making investment decisions about Northern Ireland.

Q14 Kate Hoey: I was going to ask you about that. Who briefed the President of the United States before he made that speech?

Mr Woodward: The National Security Council and the State Department.

Q15 Kate Hoey: Because to be fair to the President of the United States, I know he is a very bright man but the fact that he would be involved in the nitty-gritty of saying various things without being briefed when he made a speech which, quite honestly, could have been written by you - I am not suggesting you did write it at all, I am sure you did not, but do you see what I am trying to say?

Mr Woodward: I do, and let me just remind you, successive presidents have had special envoys and if you think of the amount of time which, for example, Paula Dobriansky, the current special envoy, spent in Northern Ireland, it has be an inordinate amount of time. The State Department - and she is the Under-Secretary in the State Department - constantly is coming in and out and I think it would be somewhat unfair not to recognise that she is quite capable of working with the National Security Council and being able to write a speech for the President drawn on the evidence of her own eyes and a witness to the testimony taken by those who are considering investment from America in Northern Ireland.

Q16 Sammy Wilson: Secretary of State, I find it odd that in all the discussions leading up to the investment conference, during all the discussions, during the investment conference, both the First Minister and the minister responsible then, Nigel Dodds for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry, did not have one, not one, chief executive raise the issue of the devolution of policing and justice with them either as a reason for not coming to Northern Ireland, or looking at Northern Ireland, and in fact the subject was not mentioned to them once. Do you not find that odd, and yet the President seems to think it is a major impediment?

Mr Woodward: All I can say, Mr Wilson, is that I had a number of conversations with people who were there during the investment conference who raised the very issue with me. One of the reasons, of course, why people do not sometimes raise the issue is that they make not the mistake but the assumption of thinking it is not an issue because it has already been done.

Chairman: I think we will move on at that point. Can I bring in John Grogan, who has been very patient?

Q17 Mr Grogan: The Independent Monitoring Commission. How long do you think it will be necessary? That is question number one. Question number two is, it was interesting reading their last report when they talked about the situation some paramilitary groups who had not disarmed may find themselves in if normalisation is completed, that in those circumstances they would be deserved to be treated like simple criminals in those circumstances. Would you have any comment on that?

Mr Woodward: The first thing I would say is that anybody who is involved in any kind of dissident activity should be regarded as a criminal. Indeed, one of the discussions we have had a great deal internally over the last twelve months has actually been the importance of probably moving beyond a nomenclature in which to some extent some of these people had some dignity by being referred to as paramilitary groupings rather than criminals who are trying to murder people and acting in a cowardly way. With respect to, therefore, which organisations the IMC was referring to, undoubtedly there are issues for those groupings - and I think of two immediately but there are others, on the Loyalist side the UDF and the UDA, who have made statements but who have not yet followed through with acts of decommissioning, and it needs to happen because the IICD will not be there for ever. It is inconceivable that in the long-term the IICD will still be there. Therefore, the mechanism for decommissioning will go and what that will mean for those who are left, having not disarmed, is that they will be faced with the problem which obviously arises from that. But I would just also say it is terribly important to engage the Loyalist community because there is a dialogue to be had. There are encouragements, not to those who would choose criminal acts, but in the communities which have been held in the grip of this activity we need to make sure that those who wish to stay within law and order recognise there is a better way of leading their lives. When it comes to dissident Republicans, what I would simply say is this: we are seeing at the moment, particularly directed at the police, a level of threat at the moment from those groups like VIRA and CIRA which is higher than it has been for the last five years. They have, as you know, tried to murder several police officers in the last six months, incredibly brave people, who fortunately were not murdered, but when you hear of one man at the traffic lights having five bullets pumped into his chest you realise just how serious and deadly these criminals are. We need to treat all these people as criminals and we need to see them put away and to see them face justice. The IMC itself, therefore, has a role in continuing to monitor this activity but I would hope that there will come a time, and it will be sooner rather than later, when we will be able to see those institutions which have helped bring Northern Ireland to this very peaceful place by and large - because we must not lose the context, the activity may be higher directed at specific police groups than it has been in five years but it is a very different level of threat from what we have seen in the past and the police have been very successful in frustrating them. But I would hope to see the IMC and the IACD in the long-term not part of Northern Ireland's political establishment.

Q18 Chairman: How long?

Mr Woodward: It is always a game, is it not, in Northern Ireland to play the deadline game? I think we have to see what progress is made by the First and Deputy First Ministers on policing and criminal justice in completing devolution. I think we have to see the work which is being done, and I am very mindful of the strictures which Mr Wilson has laid down to me this afternoon, what I can comment on and comment on, but when it comes to -

Q19 Chairman: You can say whatever you like this afternoon as far as I am concerned.

Mr Woodward: We have to be very mindful of the work which is being done to help communities out of the grip of their paramilitary past.

Q20 Chairman: You appeared to imply - and perhaps I am being unfair, so please shoot me down if I am - in those remarks a few moments ago that you almost saw the disbanding of IMC, et cetera, as part of the package that would go with devolution?

Mr Woodward: No, I do not see that. I will not borrow your metaphor, if you will forgive me, but I will correct you. I do not see them being simultaneous.

Chairman: Right. It is just important to have that clearly on the record.

Q21 Mr Grogan: What is the latest position on the pursuit of the murderers of Paul Quinn?

Mr Woodward: There continues to be a very high level of cooperation between the police in the south and the police in the north. Progress is being made and perhaps I might suggest, Chairman, that might be something I could comment on in the private session?

Q22 Chairman: Yes. Thank you very much indeed. We will have a private session with the Secretary of State if you wish, Mr Grogan, to refer to that. Do you want to say anything on the record about the aftermath of the McCartney trial on this one?

Mr Woodward: Simply to say that I understand very much the feelings of the McCartney family and I am sure all of us would have enormous empathy and share a sense of frustration, but of course it would be quite improper of me to comment on the findings of the trial other than to accept exactly and stay with the words of the judge.

Q23 Sammy Wilson: Can I just ask the Secretary of State, given what the judge did say about the involvement of the IRA and Sinn Féin in first of all the cleaning up of the murder scene, the covering up, the training of witnesses, et cetera, how can you possibly contemplate the devolution of policing and justice and believe that anyone in the Unionist community can have confidence in Sinn Féin or anyone from Sinn Féin being involved in controlling the police when the judge made such scathing comments about IRA and Sinn Féin involvement in what was a brutal murder?

Mr Woodward: Again, Chairman, I do not wish in any sense to move away from the very profound sense of empathy I have with the McCartney family and it would be perverse if what I am saying were to be distorted in a way to allow that to be a reflection of what I am saying. Secondly, I read what the judge said, but again you will understand, Mr Wilson, why it is absolutely right and proper that I do not interfere in that process. I may have views. You may have views. I think it is probably appropriate, though, that I exercise discretion at this moment. What I will say, though, in relation to the devolution of policing and justice is that there are many people in the Unionist community who actually do believe the time is right for devolution. You will have seen the polls yourself which have been conducted on this. You will also know that people in the community actually do have confidence in the system which has been established in the Executive and in the Assembly to establish that. It will be a decision made by the Assembly and by the Executive, not by me, and I believe it will be a decision which will require leadership, but in the end that will have to be something which the Assembly decides upon and the party leaders decide upon and it will be something that you will have, undoubtedly, a very strong voice on.

Chairman: At which point we will move on to smuggling with Mr Fraser, or Mr Pound.

Christopher Fraser: I want to come back, if I may, in due course to the point about the devolution of police power.

Chairman: No, I want to move on.

Christopher Fraser: No, I did not say now.

Q24 Stephen Pound: On the issue of fuel smuggling, Secretary of State - by the way, I do actually have a book at home called A History of Catholic Unionism, which is admittedly a very slim volume but I would be happy to lend it to you if you wanted it. Could I just say that when we have spoken in Northern Ireland about the offence of fuel smuggling there has been much discussion about the creation of a specific offence. We have the situation in GB at the moment where a number of people who legitimately and legally hold marine and agricultural diesel are having their homes attacked because of, obviously, the global price in oils. This is now becoming an even more serious issue. What is the current situation on the creation of a specific crime of fuel laundering?

Mr Woodward: I think the interesting observation you make about what is happening as a result of rising fuel prices in the world has been that this, which has been a very big issue as you know from your own reports in Northern Ireland, is now becoming an issue elsewhere in the world. I am not sure that it has become any more important to people in Northern Ireland than it was this time a year ago, or two years ago, because they have always felt it to be an enormously significant issue, either because of people's feelings about organised crime and its relationship with organised crime or because people (whether you agree or disagree, or approve or disapprove of it) have taken advantage sometimes of the opportunities which have been afforded by the practices which arise from this. But in relation to the offence of fuel smuggling, it is an issue which I feel particularly strongly about because I am concerned and have been concerned to see that there has been so much of it, with such a small number of people who have been prosecuted who have been involved in this. I said that we would look at it and next week there will be an announcement made by the Security Minister, Jane Kennedy, which will be a joint announcement made between the two departments, which will be moving this issue forward, but it would be premature for me to anticipate that.

Q25 Stephen Pound: With respect, Secretary of State, you said pretty much the same thing in January, when you told us that within a matter of months hopefully there should be progress on a specific offence of fuel laundering.

Mr Woodward: There will be an announcement next week.

Q26 Stephen Pound: Excellent! I am delighted to hear that. But the issue is that nowhere else in the UK do we have huckster sites on roundabouts, the absolutely flagrant and blatant selling of illegal fuels. There are tonnes and tonnes of cat litter being bought in areas where there are not thousands and thousands of cats. This is so blatant, this fuel laundering, and the point is that it is not just the smuggling and the illegality, it is the process of laundering, dyeing and filtering that is happening in a most blatant and outrageous way. Do you honestly feel that we are getting a grip on it? Are the people who are doing this being punished and do you think that the statement next week - which obviously we cannot anticipate - will actually finally move us forward on this?

Mr Woodward: I do not think there is any prospect that we could end the crime which is taking place by an announcement next week or what may be new legislation. I think that would be wholly unrealistic, but I do say to you that what matters here is not moving precipitately but moving in a way which would be effective. One of the issues which has confronted the police, and frustrated the police, is being able to find an effective way of being able to bring charges for an effective offence. That was one of the issues which I wanted the Organised Crime Task Force to look at. It is one of the issues happening between the Home Office and my own department. Therefore, as I say, there is an announcement next week to move us forward on this, but let us be under no illusion. If this was a simple issue, we would have cracked it some time ago, but it is not a simple issue. If it was a simple issue anywhere in the world, we would have cracked it. I think we have got one of the best Chief Constables anywhere in the United Kingdom, who I think is not someone who is slow in coming forward when a way can be found to deal with an issue. It is hard, and I recognise that, but that does not mean to say we are not determined to keep trying and I hope what we say next week will make a contribution to it and move it forward.

Chairman: I hope it will show that you have taken on board some of the points the Committee has made in the past.

Q27 Stephen Pound: My final point was, when you have actually got a bowser of fuel being sold by a bloke in a boiler suit on a roundabout, that is absolutely flagrantly illegal. There can be no possible excuse for that, and how come PSI can drive past a fuel bowser huckster site in this way, because we are being told that is what happens? We have seen them. I understand it is difficult and I understand all the community problems and the difficulties about the actual filling stations being subverted to illegal supplies, but this one example, the illegal huckster site, surely we can be cracking down on that?

Mr Woodward: I am sure you have had the opportunity to ask the Chief Constable yourself that question and I think I would be the first person to be reprimanded for interfering in the operational practice of the police. What I would simply say to you is that I share the frustration. All we can do is not to tell the police how to do their job but to make sure they have got the powers to do their job, and one of the powers they have been looking for is an issue we are trying to address, and that is what we will do next week. But it is not my job to actually run the police, tell them who to arrest and how to arrest them.

Chairman: Because we want to have a private session with you, I want to move on to the prisons, if I may, with Mr Anderson.

Q28 Mr Anderson: Secretary of State, you know the report you made last year and you know the points I am going to raise because I have raised them on the floor of the House with you, so I make no apologies for raising them again. What is being done in regard to progress about people being held on remand?

Mr Woodward: I am actually going to ask Mr Perry to comment specifically around this area, but if I may just make one or two brief remarks on this. We are making progress on it. This is an area which I have been concerned about and I have asked the Security Minister, particularly in light of the work we have been doing on the stage two talks over the last month or two, to take a lead on this, but I do think we need to actually do something to address this issue which this Committee has rightly raised. It is not just a question of the speed of those on remand, it is who is on remand, which is why it was important to begin to deal with the issue of fine defaulters, but perhaps Mr Perry might like to just adumbrate a little further.

Mr Perry: Just on the general point, Mr Anderson, as you know, Paul Goggins has set up a Delay Action Team, which has all the relevant departments on it, to look at ways of reducing delay in the criminal justice system at large, including the remand side, and certainly for the statutory agencies there are set targets to meet. Today in Belfast a new group, the Criminal Justice Issues group, chaired by a senior member of the judiciary is meeting and one of the issues it has on its agenda is the whole issue of delay. It is right at the top of the Chief Justice's agenda as well as Paul Goggins's, so there is a great deal of evidence going into it and Mr Goggins meets the Delay Action Team on a quarterly basis to check progress and the trends are positive.

Q29 Mr Grogan: How positive? Can you give us figures?

Mr Woodward: We have one figure, which is that currently 33% of prisoners are on remand compared with 35% earlier this calendar year. It is a small reduction in the last few months. I would be nervous about reading too much into that because statistically there could be a number of explanations for it. What matters here is that we have begun to put the will into wanting to change the system. It is not that there has been a will against changing it in the past, I think there has been a tolerance, which has been more of a problem. There has been a sense that, "Well, this is the way it is and we'll accept it." I do not think the way it is is good enough and what we need to do, particularly with some of these people, is that some of them just should not be there. So it is not just a question of speeding it up, it is a question of actually making sure that some people are just simply not on remand at all.

Q30 Mr Grogan: Quite right. You touched on fine defaulters. Has there been any improvement in the number of people going to prison for fine defaulting?

Mr Woodward: We have seen a marginal improvement on the issue again, because we have raised it in the consciousness of judges, but what I would say is that again I think the work of this Committee and the work that we have now put in place will begin to get people to understand that actually people defaulting on fines are not dangerous to the community and that prison should be a place for putting people who pose a danger to the community, and that there are many other ways of delivering punishments to those who have deliberately defaulted in the community, which are (a) likely to be more effective, (b) less costly to the taxpayer, and (c) making sure that the places we have got in our prisons are kept for the kinds of people who ought to be put away because they are the people who pose a danger to the community. The absurdity is when we have not actually got places in our own prison system in Northern Ireland and when, therefore, people who should be able to be put in prison at less expense to the taxpayer have to be transferred far greater afield because a place is being taken up by somebody who did not pay a small fine.

Q31 Mr Grogan: Finally, has there been any progress made on the creation of a dedicated women's prison?

Mr Woodward: The concern you raise is one that I certainly share and we are, as you know, trying constantly to address. Again, I commend the work of Robin Masefield in this, who I think is an outstanding figure in our prison service. We are trying to improve the conditions as they are and we are looking at the prospects of doing this in the future. It is difficult for us to commit what would be significant public funds beyond 2010/11 and with huge respect to my officials I am always being advised about not wanting to commit future money in a future Parliament. I have to say that if I have anything to do with it, there will be one.

Q32 Christopher Fraser: Before I ask the question I would like to ask, could I just raise the point Mr Anderson has just made? On this whole issue to do with fine defaulters you actually said in January that you would personally address the problem. It was a statement you made, that you would personally address the problem. I hear what you say, Secretary of State, about the issue and what needs to be done, but you must be able to put some timeframe on it?

Mr Woodward: You will respect, Mr Fraser, that I am not the judge, I am not responsible for catching people, and perhaps some people might suggest maybe the other way, actually paying a cheque for people rather than them being sent to prison. When you say what I personally could do, what I can do, of course, is actually bring people together and make them do something. Some people, for example, think it is taking quite a long time to get devolution of policing and justice. Some people think it is taking an extremely long time, and I say there will be an appropriate period of time to be allowed to elapse before it happens. The fact of the matter is, it is sometimes difficult to make people move when you would like them to move. That does not mean to say they are not right to resist the movement. Mr Wilson obviously feels very strongly on that issue. But sometimes perhaps they might move slightly more quickly. Therefore, in respect of this issue I have asked the judicial system through the Northern Ireland Office and the court service to come together. They will be actually issuing a joint consultation paper on this. This has to be something which is done with the judiciary. At the end of the day, the judges hand out the sentences. But the fact of the matter is, we are making them aware of the problem. I think this will lead to a change in the system, but equally let us also be clear that people who actually think they do not have to pay fines do need to face some kind of punishment, because otherwise why should any of us pay a parking fine, or indeed any other fine come to that? So I think we have to have some respect for those who actually want there to be an effective punitive system. I just happen to think that it is completely the wrong place, to use prison as a place for where you punish those people.

Chairman: So does this Committee.

Q33 Christopher Fraser: Yes, indeed. You have said that the final cost for the Saville inquiry will be as much as probably £200 million?

Mr Woodward: £183 million is the figure I have recently quoted, but it could be slightly higher.

Q34 Christopher Fraser: £183 million and rising. About half that amount has been expended on legal fees. That is correct, is it not?

Mr Woodward: In relation to the Saville inquiry, we estimate that slightly over half of it has been related to the legal costs, which is why, of course, we introduced the Inquiries Act so that we could actually control costs on these inquiries, which has had a significant effect in bolting down the costs.

Q35 Christopher Fraser: In terms of that control, could you just explain a little more how that control actually works, because I think there is a great fear from people that costs always seem to escalate in these types of inquiries?

Mr Woodward: I am very happy to write to the Committee in detail if you would like me to, to actually explain how the legal system and the bolting down works in practice, but the overall principle is that what we do is we restrict the amount which can actually be paid on fees so that there is a limit to the astronomical amounts which have been claimed by some people. Again, before that is distorted by anybody - and I am not suggesting you, Mr Fraser - I am not suggesting that people who have taken part in inquiries have deliberately set out to take money from the taxpayer. However, if you do not have a system of controls, as we know, it is possible to spend unlimited amounts of money. It is very important that people have proper representation and I would not wish to deprive them of that, but again it is why we have been insistent that inquiries now have to be held under the Inquiries Act, because there have to be measures of accountability and control, which regrettably under the old system did not exist and which is why it is extraordinary that the Saville inquiry, which was originally estimated to be something which would come in at around £10 million is a figure which, as you said at the beginning, is going to be somewhere between 180 and £200 million, although I am pleased to say that Lord Saville has indicated that he hopes to be able to send me the report by the end of the year or the beginning of next year.

Christopher Fraser: Finally, can you tell us anything further about the question of security of confidential information held by the inquiries?

Q36 Chairman: I think Mr Fraser has in mind the slipped disk!

Mr Woodward: Absolutely. It was an appalling breach. The problem, of course, about an independent inquiry is that it is precisely that. What you do is you offer them very clear senses of responsibility, but unfortunately in this case they had an appalling breach. I condemn it totally. It should not have happened, but it is not something for which, of course, I have any responsibility because it is actually their information, handled by them. Nonetheless, I have taken the precaution through the Permanent Secretary not only of writing to them but writing to every other inquiry and reminding them of their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act, which of course are quite onerous. It is terribly important that any public body, however independent it may regard itself, actually operates under the law as well and gives due care, attention and diligence to how they handle information and the care they attach to this information.

Christopher Fraser: Thank you.

Q37 Chairman: Secretary of State, before we move briefly into private session, the Committee will be in Belfast on Monday, as you know, and apart from publishing our report we will be having one or two meetings, including a meeting with a deputation from Omagh. I did raise this with you on the floor of the House last week. Do you have anything to add to what you said then?

Mr Woodward: I am always conscious, again, of Mr Wilson and his concern, but I would just remind Mr Wilson, therefore, that since I have been asked about Omagh and the military bases I will actually now respond to it and talk about the military bases, but I am not wishing to get in the way of the devolved Assembly in doing so. I am conscious, therefore, that it is quite difficult for me to express an opinion about it, but since I was invited by members of the DUP as well as the UUP and all the other political parties to visit perhaps I could simply say that I think it is terrific project. I wish those putting it together every success and if I am allowed to be helpful I would love to be helpful, but of course that is a decision for Mr Wilson and his colleagues.

Q38 Chairman: It is a decision also for you, Secretary of State, because as things currently stand this land is in the ownership of the MOD. It is a UK governmental responsibility. You are a Member of the Cabinet and, as I mentioned last week in the House, there are sites of roughly equivalent value owned by the current occupiers, the schools, and so this need not be a great financial transaction but perhaps rather a transfer?

Mr Woodward: That is right, Chairman, but again it is important to have some clarity on this. There is a number of proposals on the table for what could happen at that site around any education project. It is not just one proposal, there is more than one proposal. Therefore, even if (and I am very advised about those words "even if") a way could be found forward on this, and whether this might be some way of cash flowing it (and, as I say, even if it might be possible), the title might be held by the MOD but at the end of the day there is a responsibility to the taxpayer which will be rigorously explored by those in this House, I would suggest, if any arrangements were made, whether it was a gifting of the site or any other variation of that, as to whether or not the taxpayer got value for money. Again, I am just very conscious of the way in which Mr Wilson dealt with me earlier about this issue, but the fact of the matter is we are responsible to the taxpayer and if sites are gifted there is a cost to the taxpayer. It is irresponsible not to be conscious of that, because it is not just the taxpayer in Northern Ireland, it is the taxpayer in the UK, and I have a responsibility to the taxpayer throughout the United Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland, and it is entirely appropriate that we have a view as to whether or not a site is gifted and money is made available, therefore, by the taxpayer to Northern Ireland and that that money is used in an appropriate way, a way which the taxpayers could regard as having met the obligations they rightly would expect from the Government.

Sammy Wilson: Chairman, I can understand why the Secretary of State may feel sore, because he knows in this case that he probably has overstepped the mark. If I can just make it quite clear, people are quite happy for the Secretary of State to be helpful but what they do not want are inappropriate, insensitive and partisan interventions by the Secretary of State which prove to be unhelpful, and unfortunately I think that has been the hallmark of some of his behaviour over the last number of months.

Chairman: One could be tempted to say that if prizes for sensitivity were being given, you would not always win them!

Sammy Wilson: That is absolutely right, Chairman. I hope I have expressed the strength of feeling at the partisan way in which the Secretary of State appears to deal with Northern Ireland at present.

Chairman: I think you have, and for that I am sure we are all exceptionally grateful. I would like to draw this public session to a close. Thank you very much indeed for being here, Secretary of State. We will now go briefly into a private session.