| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, so great is the relief at the withdrawal of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill that it may have been overlooked that the Government have disguised the enormity of their action in withdrawing that odious Bill by somehow implying a denigration of MLAs. The two issues should not have been confused in the Statement. The MLAs are the electorate's contact with what passes for democracy in Northern Ireland—a great deal more so than those who are in the Northern Ireland Office.
I listened to the Secretary of State respond to questions in another place, and I am more than perplexed by his suggestion that the withdrawal of the Bill leaves members of the security forces vulnerable—that there is now no "off the hook" facility for members of the security forces. As a serving officer for many years, I was circumscribed by rules; if I had ever broken them, I should have been unworthy of my commission and would have expected to be punished.
11 Jan 2006 : Column 177
But I want to know that genuine mistakes made by soldiers and police officers in the heat of a fire fight or contact over more than 20 years from 1970 to 1994 will not be made answerable in the context of the normal circumstances that largely exist today. Can the Minister reassure me on that point?
Lord Rooker: To be honest, my Lords, that last question gives the game away. This is the whole point. If members of the security forces, without any protection from the kind of plan in this Bill, subject to normal military and legal procedures, were prosecuted for something that happened in the exact circumstances described by the noble Lord, and were found guilty by a court and sent to prison when the terrorists have taken advantage of the situation, think how it would feel. If the noble Lord was listening, the Secretary of State gave this as an example of why we do not want one-sided treatment. That is the whole point of the exercise, and of course it is the sticking point for Sinn Fein.
I pay tribute to anyone who has served in Northern Ireland, politically or militarily, and nothing I say knocks that, but no one can say the Government are disguising what we are doing, having made a Statement in the House of Commons and in this place as to what our intentions are. I shall deal with the two issues arising from what the noble Lord said. First, we are trying to deal with getting forward on the issue of the on-the-runs, because it will not go away. It certainly will not go away for the security forces, as has been said by the noble Lord, by direct and explicit example.
Secondly, we have to deal with the issue of the institutions in Northern Ireland. I agree that part-time commuting direct-rule Ministers looking after more than one department is at least second best compared to local politicians. The MLAs are elected, but they are not doing anything. They are writing letters to Ministers and going on delegations, but they are not legislating. They are not holding Ministers to account, because we are not going to account to MLAs: we are accountable to this place and to the other place. It is almost pretend politics. We want them to be a fully effective legislative assembly, controlling local politicians who are operating as Ministers, taking decisions on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and we want that as soon as possible.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I go back to a remark by the Minister a few minutes ago. He said that Sinn Fein had reneged on the agreement it had with the two governments and from which this Bill derived. Is it the case that from the very beginning it was made clear to Sinn Fein that the Bill would offer the same relief, if that is the right word, to security forces that was offered to the on-the-runs? In the light of the anguish suffered by the victims at the prospect of this Bill, which the Statement speaks of very eloquently, would it not have been a good deal better for all the
11 Jan 2006 : Column 178
implications of the Bill to have been thoroughly sorted out, established and nailed down before the Bill was ever introduced?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord asks a quite specific and very relevant question, to which, to be honest, I do not know the answer. These decisions and agreements were made probably two, maybe three Secretaries of State ago. Everyone knows about the public document published in 2003; it has been in the Library and in public circulation. The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill was based upon that. The decision was taken to ensure that there was no one-sided treatment, and therefore the security forces were included. At what point that occurred, I simply do not know.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, is there not a danger that the Government will be in a position where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't? Many of us should be grateful to both the Secretary of State and the Minister for the wisdom they have exercised in making this move today. Is the Minister not right to point us towards the long-term problem that remains? Looking at models elsewhere in the world that have dealt with justice and truth, does he agree that we need to try to create some sort of mechanism where people can own up to the things they have done in the past involving terror, murder, the deaths of thousands of people and the injuries of tens of thousands more—the victims who have been mentioned in your Lordships' House today? On both sides of the divide, with Loyalist groups as well now talking about disengagement from the violent process, we need to put something in place where people can own up to the past, wipe the slate clean and move on into the kind of democratic politics the Minister has outlined.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer is yes. We have to find a better way than has been found so far of building and cementing trust between the two communities.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, will the Minister recognise that his Statement today does nothing to improve the confidence of many of us, who are increasingly worried by the way in which the Government have been handling the situations in the Province, and whether they really have been giving equal recognition to the interests of both communities, rather than what seems a predominance of influence available to Sinn Fein in recent times? I am much heartened by what he said. It could hardly have been a stronger statement of the need for recognition of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the rule of law. I only hope that now, at last, the Government will stand on this point and not make yet further concessions in their desperate search for an agreement.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I respect greatly the role of the noble Lord in his former position, but I am quite
11 Jan 2006 : Column 179
clear that there has not been a lot of end-game influence by Sinn Fein, if I could put it that way, because it did not get what it wanted.
Lord Laird: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Unionists are concerned about going into an executive at Stormont with Sinn Fein? They fear that after a few months they might discover that they have gone into government with MI5. The noble Lord indicated in his Statement that republicans should be committed to exclusively lawful means. Does he mean that they must put and end to laundering criminally gained money and give up the property and businesses that the IRA owns in Dublin, Manchester, Blackpool, Liverpool and the Channel Islands, to mention but a few areas?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I meant what I said in the Statement—exclusively democratic and peaceful means. We shall receive a report from the International Monitoring Commission this month or early next month—I do not know the date—which will cover these issues of criminality.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it is needless to say that I greatly welcome the fact that this Bill is temporarily dead, although I am concerned that the Statement suggests that other ways are still to be found of solving what the Government regard as the problem of the OTRs. What is happening about the victims commissioner who was supposed to be set up as part of this legislation? Does he exist and has he got a budget?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the victims commissioner does exist. The appointment was announced towards the end of last year—it was Mrs McDougall, I think. There is not an issue here. The victims commissioner is not dependent on this Bill. This was not a quid pro quo, it was another strand of the changes. The victims commissioner has been appointed and no budget that is set aside for the victims commissioner will be affected by the withdrawal of this Bill. I can give an absolute assurance on that.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we start the Second Reading, perhaps I may appeal to the self-regulatory spirit of the House by saying that we have two Second Readings which have attracted 37 speakers between them. Obviously, when the Second Readings were scheduled we did not know that there would be either a Statement or a PNQ; nor, frankly, did we know how many people would put their names down to speak on either of the Second Readings. If Back-Bench contributions were around nine minutes on each Bill we would meet our recommended finishing time of 10 o'clock.
I would make a particular appeal on this because the House will recall that the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill was scheduled for just before the Christmas break. We withdrew it in the spirit of the
11 Jan 2006 : Column 180
House, simply because the previous business had over-run. It would be very unfortunate indeed if we found ourselves under tremendous pressure and started late on the London Olympics Bill, which would happen if we were unable to keep to around nine minutes for the first Bill, the Company Law Reform Bill.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |