| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the stamp on the letter indicates that it was deposited in the House of Lords Library in 2006, after the beginning of the new year. It is document number 003. I presume that it was deposited at the very beginning of this year. No notice was given, either to my noble friend Lord Goodhart or to myself, of the contents of the letter, which has come to light simply by the assiduity of the noble Baroness who has raised this Question. Why were we not given direct notice of this letter, even if it had been received after Second Reading had taken place?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope I made it clear that the House and the other place were
11 Jan 2006 : Column 165
both given official notice of this letter by way of Written Ministerial Statement on Monday of this week. We deposited it in the Library and we gave a response to that letter. I understand that it had been intended that the Written Ministerial Answer would be given before we broke. As a result of the illness of an official, it did not arrive until Monday, but, the matter came before the House as soon as was reasonably practicable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it appears from the Minister's replies that the letter was germane to matters considered in Committee, that it was in the possession of the Government before the Committee met and that the letter was not made available to the Opposition or other noble Lords until after Committee. Is that the situation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the situation is that the letter was initially received by the Foreign Office. It was then transferred to the Home Office. We were already in Committee on the 5th. We debated the issue in relation to Clauses 1 and 2 on 5 and 6 December. At the time, I was not appraised of the contents of that letter, but all the issues raised by the UN commissioner were raised by Members of the House: issues of intent; issues relating to Clause 1—
I hear noble Lords from a sedentary position saying, discourteously, "Rubbish". I assure the House that what I tell the House is an accurate representation of what happened.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, will my noble friend repeat the dates that she gave in her reply? Is it not the case that the letter did not arrive until a week after Second Reading and that it was at Second Reading that the commissioner asked our attention to be drawn to it? Is it not also the case that in Committee there were no Divisions, so no irrevocable decisions have been taken, and that decisions can be made on Report? Is it not a fact that it was almost admitted—or, rather, it ought to have been admitted—by the noble Baroness that, far from the noble Baroness calling the Government to account on the matter and far from her misleading the House or deserving any criticism, she should receive an apology?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the facts given by my noble friend are accurate. Of course, it is a matter for the noble Baroness whether she wishes to apologise.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the views of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Madame Arbour, are extremely relevant to the issues that we were debating and that it would have been a considerable support to us had we been able to raise those issues during debate in Committee? Does she accept that it is plainly wrong
11 Jan 2006 : Column 166
for the Government to have failed to make the letter available before we started Committee on 5 December?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that the Government have taken proper steps to make the letter available. It was not made available before we started at Second Reading, which is the request that was made. Your Lordships will remember that on the very first day in Committee, I made it clear, in responding to the issue of intent, that we were minded to table other amendments. Indeed, throughout the debate, I continued to assure the Committee that we were continuing to listen and that further amendments would be laid. They will be laid either today or tomorrow.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, while entirely accepting that the Minister had no knowledge of this, is that not somewhat worrying? In my day as a Minister, the Bill team would have picked up a letter of this kind and a draft would have come to the Minister to write to Front Benchers informing them of what had happened. The fact that it took until the New Year to put the letter in the Library and to answer a Question suggests that there is at least something awry in the organisation of the Minister's department.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Bill team with whom I have had the privilege to work have been assiduous in their work. If there has been some misconnection, I do not say that it is as a result of a lack of diligence on their part. I hope that throughout the way that we have managed the Terrorism Bill and the other Bill, Members opposite have been given the greatest degree of facilitation and response from us on the detail.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, just to put the record straight on the accusation of the noble Baroness that my noble friend and I said, "Rubbish!", we did not. My noble friend said, "So what?" and I said that it was grubby. The more that I hear of this debate, the grubbier I think it is.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I await the noble Lord's question.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I raise no epithet. Would the Minister consider that, on a Bill of this extreme importance, where the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights is central to many of the Government's own principles, at the very least an explanation should be forthcoming? The Minister's explanation involved the illness of an official, but it should have been possible to warn the Front Benches of the existence of the letter and then make provisions to amend our handling of the Report stage in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says in relation to that. I agree that
11 Jan 2006 : Column 167
it is of the utmost importance that we should have opportunities to consider this. But I do not feel that we have in any way been disadvantaged. The issues that were of importance—and those who have read the letter will see that what I say is accurate—have been very well canvassed in all our debates. Indeed, during the debates we indicated that we were minded—and we will be minded—to bring forward amendments. I have indicated already that we hope to be able to do that by the end of today or tomorrow. This will give plenty of time before Report for further consideration and plenty of time for those who wish to pray in aid the UN commissioner if they feel that further or other support—other than the rhetoric of noble Lords—is necessary.
Identity Cards Bill
3.11 pm
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Schedule 2.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Northern Ireland
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
"Northern Ireland is governed best when governed locally. Since 2002, for reasons the whole House is aware of, that has not been possible. But our commitment remains absolutely clear: this Government believe that 2006 can be the year for the restoration of the Assembly and will work to that end as a matter of the utmost priority.
"My predecessors have all referred to critical times for Northern Ireland. And there have been many. But this year is indeed a critical one, and especially for Northern Ireland's political parties, and specifically Assembly Members: 2006 is a make or break year for them.
"If there is no restoration of the Assembly in prospect, then two stark realities have to be faced. First, public resentment within Northern Ireland continues to build at the continued payment of Assembly Members' salaries and allowances totalling on average £85,000 per Member while Stormont stands idle. Since it was suspended in October 2002, the Assembly has cost £78 million to maintain.
11 Jan 2006 : Column 168
"Countless times voters in Northern Ireland have asked me: how long can this go on? I want to tell the House today: not many months more. Secondly, no Northern Ireland political leader has disagreed with me that it would be traducing democracy to have elections—for a second time—to an Assembly that does not exist.
"Elections are due in May 2007. For those to be meaningful we must have an Assembly exercising its full responsibilities. We therefore need to make progress urgently. We cannot let things drift.
"Members of the Legislative Assembly were elected to be active members of a legislative assembly, working for their constituents in that Assembly. They have a duty to do so.
"I want to see them discharging their responsibilities to their electors to govern on the shared basis the voters of Northern Ireland gave a mandate for in the 1998 referendum.
"Of course this means building greater trust to deliver on commitments already made on all sides. Unionists and nationalists need to know that republicans are committed to exclusively lawful means. They need to know that all paramilitary activity, including criminality, has ended. The Independent Monitoring Commission is the body that will make an assessment. They also need to know that there is unequivocal support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the rule of law. And republicans and nationalists have to know that unionists are fully committed to fair and equitable power sharing.
"But if people are serious about seeing a shared future based on fairness and equality, they must persuade each other of that.
"I am therefore asking each of the political parties to agree dates for substantial discussions in early February with the British and Irish Governments to give their views on the way forward to restore the political institutions.
"The Prime Minister, together with the Taoiseach, will be closely involved with developments during the year.
"I also wish to inform the House about the Government's intentions as regards the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill.
"When I moved the Second Reading on 23 November, I said that it was necessary to help bring about closure to Northern Ireland's dark past of violence by resolving outstanding issues that had not been dealt with in the Belfast agreement, primarily that of terrorist suspects 'on the run'. Following the agreement, over 400 paramilitary prisoners were released on licence.
"Although victims of atrocities were, understandably, in uproar at the sight of murderers and former terrorists walking free, it was the right thing to do to seal the agreement and lock in the peace.
11 Jan 2006 : Column 169
"But it left unresolved an equally difficult matter: the issue of what to do about those who had committed terrorist offences before 10 April 1998 and who, had they been in prison at the material time, would have been part of the Early Release Scheme. And it also left the question of what to do about others who might be prosecuted in future for crimes committed during the troubles before the Good Friday agreement.
"The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill is a challenge to everyone to look to the future, not to be trapped in the past and that challenge remains.
"But, as I told the House then, I did not bring forward this legislation with a spring in my step because I knew how hard it was for those thousands of victims who had lost so much.
"I knew that introducing this legislation would be difficult and uncomfortable: I neither sought nor expected the sympathy of the House for that.
"Members of the House, particularly those from Northern Ireland, expressed their opposition to this Bill with great power and passion. In detailed discussion in Committee over many hours, those concerns were amplified with real commitment by Members across the Committee.
"That passion was expressed no less powerfully outside the House in meetings that I and the honourable Member for Delyn had with victims groups.
"In response to the arguments put to us in Committee, we have been drafting wide-ranging amendments to the Bill—including ensuring that defendants would have to appear before the Special Tribunal. And we were giving serious consideration to a time limit for the scheme.
"The Government still feel that it was right to introduce this legislation, not least to honour the commitment made publicly by both the British and Irish Governments in 2003, a commitment that was a key building block in the process which saw the IRA end their armed campaign.
"The Government could have proceeded with this Bill when the issue was first raised seven years ago. We could have done so when the Joint Declaration was made in 2003. But we did not because the IRA had not delivered on its promise to end its war. We waited until that happened.
"Every Northern Ireland party vigorously opposed the Bill—bar Sinn Fein. Now Sinn Fein is opposed because it refuses to accept that this legislation should apply to members of the security forces charged with terrorism-related offences.
"To exclude any members of the security forces who might have been involved in such offences from the provisions of the Bill would not only have been illogical, it would have been indefensible and we would not do it. Closure on the past cannot be one-sided. That was, is, and remains, non-negotiable.
11 Jan 2006 : Column 170
The process would have made people accountable for their past actions through the Special Tribunal before being released on licence.
"Sinn Fein has now said that any republican potentially covered by the legislation should have nothing to do with it. But if nobody goes through the process, victims, who would have suffered the pain of having to come to terms with this legislation, would have had done so for nothing. That is unacceptable, and I am therefore withdrawing the Bill.
"When I introduced this Bill I said that I would not presume to tell any victim that they must draw a line under the past. But the Government remain of the view that this anomaly will need at some stage to be faced as part of the process of moving forward. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland is not yet ready to do so.
"We will reflect carefully over the coming months on how to move forward on this issue in the context of dealing with the legacy of the past. We will not rush to conclusions. I will take stock in the autumn.
"In reflecting, we will be mindful of the views of all the political parties, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, victims' groups and others. We are coming to the endgame of a long period of transition that began with the ceasefires of the early 1990s. As I have said before, the endgame in conflict transformation is often the hardest part, as it has proved in this case. But 2006 can and must be a year of historic progress in Northern Ireland. It must be a year in which we will see a devolved, power-sharing executive of local politicians taking the decisions that affect the everyday lives of the people of Northern Ireland. That goal should unite all Members of this House".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
3.20 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |