Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill

First, I want to thank right hon. and hon. Members for their continuing kindness and support, and their empathic approach, following the death of my brother. I recognise that while this is a personal tragedy for me, what we are really debating today is a whole raft of personal tragedies that have taken place in Northern Ireland as a result not of destiny or nature but of the deeds of men and women who resorted to terrorism. I should like us to remember that despite the formal and objective way in which we must debate these matters, we are really dealing with matters of the heart and trying to ensure security and closure for individuals who have suffered through no fault of their own. That is why the legislation is so important and why I am grateful to the Minister for having taken a serious and responsible approach in responding to the points that we have made, even if he may have sometimes disagreed. I congratulate the Minister on his erudite and entertaining approach, even though we have sometimes had to endure the slings and arrows of bitter words. Only this afternoon, he accused the Liberal Democrats of being a pick-and-mix party in terms of our policies. Were I a vicious man, I would point out that at least I am not pick-and-mix in my party affiliations. [Laughter.] Nevertheless, I salute the hon. Gentleman for his prudent judgment through the years, which has propelled him to a position of power. As I look forward to the Liberal Democrats sweeping to power in 2009, I assure him that his experience will be valued and that we can talk about that in confidence. The main issues were debated again on Report. Those that vexed us most were hearsay evidence and Diplock courts. My colleagues and I remain unpersuaded of the Under-Secretary’s case in defence of maintaining the power. His strongest argument related to the Omagh victims and the potential for five cases in the pipeline to require the use of hearsay evidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) pointed out, that is not strong enough. Lord Carlile, who has no interest in compromising the progress towards prosecution of those responsible for the Omagh bombing or any other terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, could not have been clearer about hearsay evidence. His comments have been quoted already, but the words are so clear that it is worth repeating them. Lord Carlile stated:"““I am totally unpersuaded by the arguments for its retention . . . Section 108 could be repealed without any measurable disadvantage to the cause of public protection from terrorism. It is a provision that lies uncomfortably in the broader context of normalisation and the Good Friday Agreement.””" That is as clear as any independent arbiter could be that the requirement is not effective. In response to the Under-Secretary’s reasonable question about who would take responsibility if hearsay evidence were not allowed and the progress of justice were thus thwarted, I would say that it is the wrong question. We will not get a prosecution on the basis of hearsay evidence—that is Lord Carlile’s point. The question is counter-productive—in other words, it is not neutral. The inclusion of hearsay evidence risks the far greater danger of creating martyrs, resentment and false prosecutions. I do not want to put words into Lord Carlile’s mouth, but I would present those explanations to people who challenge me about why I resist the use of hearsay evidence. The evidence of history supports my point. If hearsay evidence were so important, it would have been used at least once in the past seven years. Furthermore, the Under-Secretary argued against new clause 1, which proposed three judges instead of one in Diplock courts, on the basis that existing procedures were effective. He cannot use that argument in that instance while simultaneously rejecting it when I say that the existing procedures have been effective without hearsay evidence. There is a contradiction in the Government’s case for hearsay evidence. In essence, I believe that including the provisions for hearsay evidence may protect the general public against individuals by banging them up, but they do not protect the general public against injustice. That is at the heart of our concerns about the provision. The Under-Secretary asked us to identify with the plight of the Omagh victims. I met Michael Gallagher and his colleagues yesterday at four hours’ notice. It took the Prime Minister five years—half a decade—to meet the representatives of the Omagh victims. He therefore needs to be careful when he accuses Opposition politicians of not taking the plight of the Omagh victims seriously. We had an extensive debate on the case for three-judge courts. The Liberal Democrats did not get what we wanted but we got something significant, for which I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. We now have a specific commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny and, I assume, true bipartisan debate about what should replace Diplock courts. The problem with the word ““bipartisan”” is that it implies two parties. Recent history suggests that, when two parties are involved, they are the Labour Government and Sinn Fein. I hope that, when the Under-Secretary talks about bipartisanship with regard to replacing the Diplock courts, he will ensure genuine cross-party debate, involving the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionists, the Alliance party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and, of course, Sinn Fein. The Government often make the mistake of believing that some consultation with one party means that they do not have to engage in full consultation with all parties. I will bank what the Minister has said, but we really want to see the evidence of cross-party consultation taking place before we will be comfortable. The Minister has also given us an explicit commitment that the measures on pre-legislative scrutiny will not share the expiry date of the existing Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. I obviously hope that the Ministers will not move on—the Minister before us today is a very likeable chap if you meet him socially, and he does a pretty good job in the House as well. It is a long and painful process to educate successive Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. Each time that process comes to a conclusion, the Minister is up to speed on the intricacies of what has gone on over the past eight years, only to be moved on. So we have to start again, the same mistakes are made by the new Ministers, and we all have to go back into a mentoring role to ensure that the Ministers have the basis of information that they need for such a specific technically and historically loaded subject. The Minister before us today has given us something very important. He has given us an assurance that the pre-legislative scrutiny with regard to Diplock courts will not be dependent on those in ministerial positions in the Northern Ireland Office at the moment, but that the responsibility for that pre-legislative scrutiny will be carried ex officio by the Ministers there. I am grateful for that; it is an important assurance. There is no loss, cost or defeat for the Government in having made that commitment, and I look forward to the inclusion of a process of scrutiny that was lamentably absent from the on-the-runs legislation.